Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HARRIS TWEED BILL [Lords]

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

London Implementation Group

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the proposed programme for the Government's response to the report of the London implementation group.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to conclude the reorganisation of hospital provision in London.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): "Making London Better" sets out the timetable for improving London's health service, including our £170 million programme for strengthening primary care in the capital. The need for change is most urgent in inner London, where a number of hospital site option appraisals are already under way. Another key element will be the recommendations of the recently published independent specialty review reports. The main proposals for the future configuration of services in inner London will come forward in the autumn. Any major proposals to change services will, of course, be subject to full public consultation.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I recognise my right hon. Friend's problems and motives in rationalising health care in London. In the present economic climate, and with particular reference to Bart's, about which there has been so much public concern, can she give the House an absolute assurance that adequate funds will be available for the movement of units from Bart's to the Royal London hospital? If she is unable to give the House that assurance, will she say that the units, which have been recognised as centres of excellence in the specialty reviews and generally, will be allowed to operate on two sites so that nothing of value is destroyed?

Mrs. Bottomley: I give my hon. Friend a clear assurance that the intention of "Making London Better" is to improve and strengthen the specialist services. Independent commentator after independent commentator has reinforced the point that the London specialty services are fragmented, duplicate each other and will not

be national, let alone international, centres of excellence unless change is embraced. My hon. Friend is right; we need to take great care and show consideration for preserving excellence, but I commend to him the words of Professor Besser when he said:
Bart's would not have survived 870 years if it had not been flexible.
I welcome the discussions that are under way between Bart's and the Royal London hospital and I am sure that strengthened services and the safeguarding of excellence will emerge out of them.

Mr. Banks: What does the right hon. Lady have to say to the statement made by Mr. Sandy Macara, the new chairman of the British Medical Association, who said that the national health service would be dead inside seven years unless the rot was stopped now and that it was underfunded by £6 billion?
What does the right hon. Lady have to say to Professor Jarman, who published an article a couple of weeks ago in the British Medical Journal that proved conclusively that London was not overstocked with hospital beds? When she answers, will she please not read out a list of misleading statistics produced by Conservative central office—as she normally does—because the more she does that, the more she sounds like a Dalek in a nurse's uniform?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members should read the edition of the British Medical Journal from the week after the specialty reviews were reported, which said:
The specialty reviews show clearly that some clinical services in London are not as good as they should be … Those who ultimately make the decisions on London should not lose sight this summer of the fact that their aim is to improve services for Londoners and the people of the Thames regions … it is not to protect institutions.
It is well understand that primary care is not up to a sufficient standard in London. I commend to the hon. Gentleman some of the developments in his area, such as the increase in the number of community psychiatric nurses and district nurses and the investment in primary care, as well as the £11 million development at Homerton hospital.

Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need to implement the changes to health care in London at a sensible rate, in line with the changes in demand? Will she ensure that the changes in the number of acute beds are in line both with changes in demand and with improvements in primary health care?

Mrs. Bottomley: I give my hon. Friend that clear assurance. We said that we would not make progress in London until we had invested in primary care. This year, £43·5 million is going into primary care, in 78 different capital schemes. Tomorrow, I shall open the South Westminster health centre, a £1·7 million investment in family doctor and community services. There is an urgent need to take our proposals forward because, all over the south-east, district health authorities are changing their patterns of referral. The London specialty services treat, on average, about half the number of cancer patients that are treated in other parts of the country, so it is extremely urgent, if their excellence and their reputations are to be protected, that we take change forward.

Ms Primarolo: Does the Secretary of State agree that the way in which she has handled the Tomlinson report and the specialty reviews has blighted the whole of London's health service and that she is responsible for the low morale of staff, for undermining patients' confidence, for talking down the national health service and for causing chaos, because she does not have a clue what to do now that the reforms have failed? Are not the reforms that she said would save the national health service destroying it like a creeping cancer?

Mrs. Bottomley: Again, I urge the hon. Lady to do her homework. I commend the words of Christopher Ward, a consultant at Charing Cross hospital, who said:
Too many specialist services are supplied to the dwindling population of London. These vary from the excellent to the inadequate".
I commend also the words of Paddy Ross, of the Joint Consultants Committee, who said:
Ministers should be congratulated on the way they have responded to the Tomlinson Report. As a result of meaningful consultations they have produced a Government response the broad thrust of which is supported by the medical profession at national level".
There is great agreement that changes need to come. We shall move as swiftly as we reasonably can. With such serious decisions to be made, it is right to take properly into account the independent specialty reviews and the reviews of the special health authority research which will be published shortly.

Mr. Couchman: As my right hon. Friend takes the momentous decisions that she has to take to strengthen primary health care in London, will she bear in mind the fact that the destruction of a world-famous centre such as the Royal Marsden hospital would need justification stronger than that thus far offered by the differing opinions of Tomlinson and of the review group? Furthermore, will she also take into account the facts that London's gain over many years has been the loss of areas such as mine and that she will have to bear a great burden in deciding where to direct the resources that she takes from London and redistributes to the provinces?

Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly respond to the second part of my hon. Friend's remarks, because London has been spending 20 per cent. of the money on 15 per cent. of the people. There have been improvements, but there has been a distortion in the balance of provision in London because of the numerous duplicated speciality services and the great number of sites and institutions that have not changed at the same pace as the delivery of health care and the great investment outside London.
In reply to what my hon. Friend said about the Royal Marsden, I want to do nothing more than to protect and enhance London's national and international reputation for clinical services, research and education. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members would be hard pressed to find any authentic representatives of the academic or the medical profession who do not agree that services in London are duplicated and too small and that they need reintegration and rationalisation to become stronger.

Health Authority Mergers

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received on the subject of health authority mergers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I have received a number of representations on that subject, including one from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Most recently, I had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

Mr. Pike: As we move towards the merger of the two health authorities in north-east Lancashire, can the Minister give the assurance that when the consultation takes place it will be genuine, and not a total sham, as was the consultation before we moved to trust status? Will he also guarantee that, as a result of the merger, there will not be a rationalisation that will provide less effective local services to the people of north-east Lancashire?

Mr. Sackville: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that I can give him that assurance. Those to be consulted will include local Members of Parliament, any districts or family health services authorities that are affected, local community health councils, interested local authorities, trusts, universities and professional and representative organisations.
On the second point, there is every reason to suppose that the new purchasing arrangements will be of great benefit to patients in the hon. Gentleman's area.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is well aware that Macclesfield borough council, Crewe and Nantwich borough council, Macclesfield community health council, myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) are strongly opposed to the proposed merger of Crewe and Macclesfield health authorities.
Does my hon. Friend agree that those bodies and individuals are more representative of the people of that area than anyone else? Will he take their representations seriously into account? Does he accept that it would be better for the Government to halt the merger of districts until they have considered the merger of regions, and perhaps put the Mersey and North Western regions together, enabling Macclesfield to have a more natural partner to the north rather than Crewe to the south?

Mr. Sackville: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views. He has failed to mention all the bodies and organisations that are in favour of the merger. I must remind my hon. Friend, however, that if he wants the best for the patients in his constituency, he will want a stronger purchaser with a larger number of residents, so that the purchaser has more influence with providers. That is the whole point of the purchaser-provider split.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that that was the greatest load of claptrap that even he has ever uttered? There is no reasonable argument—medical, political or economic—for jamming together those two health authorities, which do not have common services and do not want the amalgamation. Will the Minister admit that he has no more intention of taking any notice of local people or local Members of Parliament than he has of learning to fly around the Chamber without a kite?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Lady must realise that common services are not the main point. The main point is that a strong purchaser representing her constituents will be better able to assess the health needs of the whole area.

Mental Health Act 1983

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the working of section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides for a patient suffering from mental disorder to be compulsorily admitted to hospital for assessment for a maximum of 28 days. We have been reviewing the general adequacy of the Act's provisions in relation to vulnerable or potentially dangerous psychiatric patients and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce her conclusions on this shortly.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have given previous notice of three cases to my hon. Friend. The first involved a patient who was detained on inconclusive evidence, with subsequent devasting damage to the patient's family. The second case involved a patient whom two doctors had certified should be detained. The social worker refused to detain the patient, who then went outside and bopped the social worker on the head. The patient had to be brought inside and detained. In the third case, the patient could not get any evidence—

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying the patience of the House. Will he come to his question to the Minister?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for your advice, Madam Speaker. In view of the abuses of the current system, will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the system whereby a mental health tribunal takes 21 days to settle such cases? Will my hon. Friend set up a quicker conciliation procedure?

Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notes of the cases to which he referred. As he said, some of the cases were referred too quickly and others were not referred quickly enough. I am seeking comments from the authorities involved about the cases raised. Section 2 requires a tribunal to act within seven days, not 21. Under the 1983 Act, the Mental Health Act Commission acts on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in keeping the working of the Act under review. That can include any aspect of the Act.

Ms Lynne: Can the Minister explain how it can be right that people detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 have no statutory right to after-care under section 117? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Health to use her powers to direct health authorities, local authorities and NHS trusts to have some minimum standard of after-care, thus preventing mental health patients or ex-patients who recognise that they need treatment going for help and being turned away?

Mr. Bowis: It is our wish that everyone who needs treatment and after-care should receive it. That is why we have put in place the care programme approach, which ensures that everyone who leaves institutional care has a programme of treatment and social welfare and a key worker to assist. The mental health task force under David King is travelling around the country ensuring that social services departments are better able to receive such people and, indeed, to look after them while they are in the community.

Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that, for example, in rural communities, schizophrenic patients who from time to time have to be sectioned find that when housing is found for them they are housed in a large urban conurbation? That exacerbates their problem because they are away from the area where they are known by the local community and the area with which they are familiar. Will my hon. Friend examine that issue? It is a particular problem in rural constituencies such as mine.

Mr. Bowis: I accept entirely that the point that my hon. Friend raises is important. The programme for housing between the health authority and the relevant local authority social services department should be put in place before the patient is returned to the community. Certainly, the wishes and needs of the patient as well as of the patient's carers will be taken into account. I am sure that needs will be met in the way that my hon. Friend wishes.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern that the Government's only apparent response to the increasing lack of public confidence in community care is to amend the mental health legislation and strengthen its provisions? Is not it astonishing that the Government admitted in the last oral Health questions, that they did not have the least idea where thousands of psychiatric patients who had been discharged while the Government have been in power had gone?
When will the Government start on the basics of community care: guaranteed after-care and support, proper accommodation, and care plans that are agreed when patients leave hospital and regularly reviewed when they are in the community? When will the Government realise that community care must be much more than simply closing hospitals and saving public expenditure?

Mr. Bowis: I wonder whether it is not time that the hon. Gentleman understood that it is our policy that everyone who has a mental health problem should be considered carefully and have his or her interests taken into account. It is not the case that beds are closed and people are thrown out into the community; bed closures must be set against a much wider range of provision in the community for former long-stay patients.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to exchange facts, why does not he explain the real fact about funding mental health provision in Britain at the rate of £2 billion every year; the real fact about trebling the number of community psychiatric nurses; the real fact about trebling independent sector residential places; the real fact that funding for local authority services for the mentally ill has been increased by 86 per cent. in real terms; and the fact that mental health specific grant has increased this year by £13 million to £34·4 million, including £250,000 to the hon. Gentleman's borough?

Cardiac Unit, Plymouth

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made regarding plans for a specialist cardiac unit at Plymouth.

Mr. Sackville: I understand that South Western regional health authority has asked local health districts to prepare a business case for the development of a cardiac surgery unit at Derriford hospital in Plymouth.

Mr. Streeter: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is simply not acceptable for people living in Plymouth, which is the 14th largest city in the country, to have to travel 120 miles to Bristol or 240 miles to London for cardiac treatment? Does that not further show the urgent need to reallocate the surplus capacity in London's specialty services to ensure that those vital facilities are available for the regions where they are badly needed and would be warmly welcomed?

Mr. Sackville: I have visited my hon. Friend's constituency and talked to some of the patients at Derriford hospital who have had to travel large distances and I am aware of the problem. However, my hon. Friend should be aware that a decision on a cardiac unit is not taken lightly: the unit must be of a certain size. He will be aware also that, of those patients currently treated at Bristol, some will continue to be referred to Bristol and others may well continue to be referred to Oxford or London. Before any such decision can be taken, it has to be proved that there will be a sufficient number of referrals to a new cardiac unit.

Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that the incidence of heart disease in the Plymouth health authority area is among the highest in the country, yet that is one of the few areas of England without a dedicated unit to carry out angioplasty and bypass operations? As hundreds of people are travelling from Devon and Cornwall each year for cardiac treatment in London and Bristol, will the hon. Gentleman now give urgent consideration to providing funds so that such a unit can be set up in Plymouth without further delay?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman should not pretend that it has been a matter of resources. It has been a matter of the need to refer to a suitable centre. He will know, perhaps, that the region is intending to cater for 316 coronary artery bypass grafts per million population. That is above the national average of 300. That increase may justify a new centre.

Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the fact that a cardiac unit in Plymouth would serve not only Plymouth and that part of Devon but Cornwall? It is a long day's march from Cornwall to London, as I and other hon. Members from Cornwall know. It is also a long distance from my constituency to Bristol. Will my hon. Friend examine that matter with urgency and sympathy?

Mr. Sackville: The long distances are a major factor. It would appear that, if there is to be a second centre, the most suitable location would be Plymouth.

Trent Regional Health Authority

Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the management of Trent regional health authority.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Trent regional health authority has an excellent record in the delivery of health services. In the past four years, for example, it has seen a 75 per cent. increase in the use of day surgery, releasing resources to treat more patients. Long waiting times, in particular, have fallen dramatically. Almost a third of the region's population now benefit from having a GP fund

holder, which is well ahead of the national average. We expect that, from next year, all but four of the region's units will have been strengthened by NHS trust status.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State is one of the few people left with confidence in Trent regional health authority. Is she aware of the catalogue of disasters going uninvestigated in that authority: Beverley Allitt; brain damaged babies at Doncaster royal infirmary; Neil Silvester, the psychiatrist who released one of his patients, who, two days later, stabbed to death an innocent 12-year-old girl in Doncaster; and, recently, an unfortunate stabbing in Doncaster royal infirmary?
Public inquiries have been called for in all those cases. All were refused. When will we have a public inquiry into that catalogue of disasters? If the Secretary of State refuses, may we have a public inquiry into the management of Trent regional health authority?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman cites a number of cases, all of which are complex and, as he rightly says, deeply concerning. I commend an article from the Solicitors' Journal that identifies the cases in which a public inquiry is the best approach as distinct from an investigative inquiry where the results are revealed. It states that the format of the public inquiry is quite unsuited to the delicate and sensitive issues of health and child care matters, and that
The only criteria to be satisfied in the Allitt case are that:
the inquiry team are competent and independent
that they have access to the information
that witnesses are confident to come forward and give their evidence
that the report is published in full".
It goes on to say that clearly the decision of a private inquiry
will satisfy the overriding concern of the parents, the medical profession and the public that the truth be known".
That is important advice.
All the cases that the hon. Gentleman cited from his constituency have been investigated. The health advisory service is currently considering the care of the mentally ill in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. At the same time, in his constituency as elsewhere, there have been great improvements in care. No one in Doncaster generally has to wait more than 18 months, 12 months for a cataract operation or nine months for hip and knee operations.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why she is refusing to meet the parents of Beverley Allitt's victims unless they agree not to discuss the proceedings of the Clothier committee, and why she is refusing a public inquiry on a day when the Clinical Standards Advisory Group has declared the devastating and indicting state of neonatal intensive care facilities in Britain? Does the right hon. Lady agree with the advisory group that the market in health has failed, that there is a need for proper health planning and that, unless that takes place, people throughout Britain can have no faith in the national health service under the right hon. Lady's tutelage?

Mrs. Bottomley: That is another typical example of the way in which the hon. Gentleman fails to understand the changes that have been taking place in the health service. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group was set up by the Government precisely to advise on specialist services. It certainly does not say that they are in any way jeopardised


by the changes that have taken place. Its advice must be considered by purchasers in securing ever-increasing standards of care for their local health authorities.
I have made it clear that I am happy to meet the parents of Beverley Allitt's victims and I have met a number of them informally. At the moment, judicial matters are under way. In particular, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of the South Lincolnshire community health council. My wishes are those of the parents and staff—to get to the bottom of the case, to reveal all the facts, to publish the report and to ensure that the lessons are learnt. There has already been a lengthy criminal trial and an independent management investigation. The community health council stated:
The nature of a public inquiry with its adversarial atmosphere and the length of time that such proceedings demand may not necessarily establish the truth nor at the end of the day throw a lot of light on what actually happened.
It is the opinion of Sir Cecil Clothier, a distinguished, eminent and independent Queen's counsel, that that is not the way to get to the truth.

"The Health of the Nation"

Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the implementation of "The Health of the Nation".

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", which was published a year ago, has been widely welcomed both within the NHS and further afield, not least by the World Health Organisation which described it as a model for others to follow. Progress towards meeting the targets set out in the White Paper is generally good. A wide range of activities is under way to ensure that we secure the improvements in health which are the overall aim of our policy. Much of the work is being reflected this week in a range of publications and events to mark the first anniversary of the White Paper.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Secretary of State for that rosy report on the state of the nation's health, but can she justify to the House her proposals to close so many of the nation's hospitals, including five in north Manchester alone? Is she aware that there is such a wave of anger that this weekend 500 people took to the streets of north Manchester opposing the closure of the Booth Hall children's hospital? In the light of that, will she reconsider her decision to close that hospital?

Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, no decision has been taken on that matter, but the health of the nation cannot be measured in institutions which were built for generations past. Investment in health is important in primary care, family doctors and community nurses, emphasising prevention as well as cure. In the hon. Gentleman's health authority since 1979 there has been an increase of half as much again in the number of day cases, a two thirds fall in the one-year waiters, a 59 per cent. —nearly a 60 per cent.—increase in the number of general practitioners and a 67 per cent. increase in the number of dentists. That is a clear investment in health. Health is not only about institutions—in this country or anywhere else in the world.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that "The Health of the Nation" White Paper has taken the health service a giant step forward towards its original goal of

securing improvements in the overall state of health? Does she also agree that the Labour party is constantly displaying its lack of vision by continuing to focus on input measures, such as the number of beds, when the health service is changing and the emphasis should be on improving health?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The health service should not be measured by the number of beds. It is not a furniture warehouse. We should measure the health service in terms of the number of patients treated. That is why the extra 400,000 patients treated in the past year represented such a great achievement for the staff involved.
The key element of the NHS, which we have at last been able to set in place so long after its establishment, is that it is a health service, not an illness service. It is about health, not health institutions. It is about prevention as well as cure. "The Health of the Nation" strategy, following the improvements in the family doctor services, "Working for Patients" and the establishment of trusts, is the third leg of the stool that will lead to a health service that will continue to be the envy of the world into the next century.

Mr. Blunkett: Given the Secretary of State's special understanding of the feelings and emotions of unmarried mothers, will she denounce as insensitive and hypocritical the comments made at the weekend by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who speaks for a Government who have cut family planning resources, who have reduced the school health service, who have failed to tackle teenage pregnancies and whose policies are designed to undermine and destroy rather than build up and secure responsibility and commitment to the family?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's approach. Be that as it may, however, I believe strongly that children need families. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was pointing out that rabid ideas of feminism are not the best approach to bringing up children and that children need mothers as well as fathers. I believe that my hon. Friend is exactly right and I also congratulate him on his work in talking about the importance of sex education in schools, where he has been taking a clear line that children need to be prepared for the world in which they are to live.
Family planning services have changed dramatically over the years. Now, 98 per cent. of GPs provide family planning services. That is why we have had a review to ensure that the clinics are focused on the needs of today and tomorrow and especially on the needs of the young.

Mr. Sims: One of the key aims of "The Health of the Nation" is a reduction in the incidence of coronary heart disease, in which two contributory factors are smoking and diet. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on their success before the European Court on the question of health warnings on cigarette packets, but can she tell us what steps she proposes to take to reduce smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds in the light of the chief medical officer's concern that targets may not be reached? Can she also tell us what success the nutritional task force, which she appointed in December, has had in persuading us all to follow healthier diets?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has long been a champion in the fight against smoking. He will know that we have had greater success than almost any other European country in reducing smoking. Only the Netherlands has a better record than ours. The Netherlands shares our approach to the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising, but also our policy of taking vigorous and determined action to ensure that we get the message home to young people as well as their parents. Children of parents who strongly disapprove of smoking are seven times less likely to smoke than other children.
Our success at the European Court is an example of our firm intent. The health warnings on our cigarette packets are 50 per cent. bigger than in any other country and we have chosen to use the most direct messages on those packages. We shall continue to strengthen the campaign because we intend to meet the target by the end of the century. In particular, as my hon. Friend rightly suggests, we need to renew the campaign against young people smoking.
The nutrition task force produced its new programme this morning. I hope that all hon. Members will study the programme carefully and let us have any further advice that can change the dietary habits of us all.

Royal Free Hospital

Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the Royal Free hospital in the pattern of London's health care following the Tomlinson review.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The Royal Free hospital will continue in its role as an important and well-managed provider of services to local patients.

Ms Jackson: Does that mean that the recommendations of the London implementation group specialty reviews will not be implemented? Under those recommendations, the Royal Free would lose cancer treatment, neurosurgery, paediatrics and a world-renowned renal transplant unit. Are not the review boards, brought into being by the Department of Health, yet another smokescreen put up by the Government in an attempt to conceal the basic fault in their policy, which is that a market economy cannot provide the health service that the country demands and should receive?

Dr. Mawhinney: Of course they are not. As the hon. Lady knows, the specialty review reports represent independent advice to Ministers and they will not determine—by themselves, certainly—the future pattern of services. The recommendations as they affect the Royal Free will no doubt be a subject for discussion with the region, with local hospitals and with the implementation group, to ensure that all points are properly satisfied. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the hon. Lady on 23 June and I confirm it.

Mr. Tracey: Does my hon. Friend agree that we can all go on about our own local hospitals and that I could make a strong case for more resources for Kingston hospital, but that our policy is about universal health care across the whole of London and our first priority must be primary care across London?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. When I visited the Royal Free on Friday, I found it adopting a more positive attitude towards its future than the hon. Member in whose constituency it lies ever adopts in the House.

Free Dental Treatment

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the rules governing free dental treatment.

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the rules governing free dental treatment.

Dr. Mawhinney: Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's review of the remuneration of general dental practitioners set out a number of options for changing the way in which we deliver general dental services. We have consulted widely on his report and will announce our proposals in due course.

Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree that prevention is both wise and, in the longer term, economic? Is he not willing to implement the Select Committee's recommendation that a core service of diagnostic and preventive care should be available to all patients free of charge?

Dr. Mawhinney: Prevention is, of course, an important aspect of health care; the hon. Gentleman is right on that point. We have read the Select Committee report with great interest—and great care—and will reflect on it seriously before making a judgment. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I remind him that paragraph 151 of the report says:
There was, however … much more consensus amongst witnesses concerning the problems than concerning the solutions.
It is right that we should take time in order to get a proper solution.

Ms Eagle: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government have no intention whatever of removing from pregnant women and nursing mothers the current entitlement to free dental health care?

Dr. Mawhinney: What I will do is take the hon. Lady's views into consideration, even though the consultation period has concluded. I will do that against the background of my knowledge that at no time did the Labour party offer any considered view as part of the public consultation on the way in which dentistry should develop in this country. I have taken note of that. I have also taken note of the fact that the Liberal Democrats do not have a considered view for the future either.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 economic summit in Tokyo.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government and our leading partners will exert maximum pressure on the Japanese to open their markets to imports of all kinds and to the sort of free trade that is now developing rapidly in the European single market?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise that. One of the key aims of the G7 summit will be to agree on measures that can help to further the recovery of the world economy, including the maintenance and sustenance of free and competitive trade. My right hon. Friend's aim will include very much ensuring that sufficient progress is made on the market access and services package to permit early resumption of the multilateral negotiations in Geneva and bring a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round.

Mrs. Beckett: Is the Lord President aware that, last night in another place, his ministerial colleagues said that the defeat that the Government suffered on the Railways Bill struck at the heart of that legislation? Does he agree?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that the Government have set out and seen accepted in this place their arguments on this matter and he will take a lot of persuading to believe that the policy should be changed. Nevertheless, the other place has asked for reconsideration and, of course, we will carefully consider the points that have been made.

Mrs. Beckett: Is it not crazy that the French, the Germans or the Italians will be able to run trains on British railways and the only people who will not are British Rail? Why do the Government not show some common sense and simply admit that they have got it wrong?

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends have fought every privatisation for 12 or 14 years. As one by one the privatisations have proved successful, they have been forced to abandon most of that. The people who need to learn the lessons are Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has published figures today showing an 11 per cent. increase in new care sales over June 1992? Is that not further evidence that the recovery is being sustained?

Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend has described exactly the figures published this morning by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. What is more, the SMMT goes on to say that recovery in the new car market in all but three of the past 15 months is now clearly established. That comes alongside all the other evidence that we have seen—manufacturing output tip, car output up, exports up and unemployment down.

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bradley: Does the Leader of the House recall that on 29 October 1987, less than six years ago, as the then Minister for Health, he proudly came to my constituency

to open the Duchess of York children's hospital? Is he aware that, last week, South Manchester health authority confirmed its plan to close that purpose-built children's hospital despite overwhelming opposition?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he supports the all-party campaign, which has overwhelming public support, to keep open our children's hospital, or will he accept the invitation which is on the way to him, to return to Manchester, to close that hospital on behalf of the Government?

Mr. Newton: I well remember the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I have to say that the hospital was not opened by me but by the Duchess of York. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is considering the proposal, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it will be subject to full public consultation. My right hon. Friend will make her decision in due course.

Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that political parties should not sell the right to choose their leaders or decide their policies? Can he confirm that the Conservative party remains committed to one man, one vote?

Mr. Newton: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The activities of political parties are not a subject for Prime Minister's Question Time. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) must question the Government about their policies. It is Government policy in which we are interested.

Mr. Newton: rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Madam Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has been with us a long time and he is a respected man in this place. I am sure that he has an appropriate reply.

Mr. Newton: I was going to say that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) was asking about the Government's attitude to such matters. [Interruption.] I think that that question is entirely right. I have read with great interest the press reports of recent days, starting with that about the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who said that he was going to have a confrontation with the unions, and followed by the comments of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who said that she was looking for compromise. I just wonder when we shall have the climbdown and capitulation.

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Heppell: Is the Leader of the House aware that 405 former council properties are empty in the city of


Nottingham and that 80 of them have already been vandalised, when 350 households have been designated as statutorily homeless and another 104 families live in conditions that are statutorily overcrowded? Does the Leader of the House not believe that it is time that the Government took a compassionate and humanitarian view and allowed the city council to spend some of the £53 million that it has amassed from the sale of council houses to put roofs over those people's heads?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that, at this period of time, Nottingham city council—in common with others—has full freedom to spend capital receipts. It can also take advantage—[Interruption.] It may spend capital receipts generated at this time. It also has access to the full range of measures that my right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced to assist the housing market.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Viscount Runciman and his colleagues on the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, which has been published today? Although many of its recommendations will require a great deal of thought and consideration, does my right hon. Friend agree that some improvements in our criminal justice system are desirable not just to protect the innocent but to ensure that the guilty are properly convicted?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Newton: It is obvious from the response of my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, I suspect, a good deal of sympathy from the Opposition—that there is a wide welcome for the report that has been published today by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. There will no doubt be differences of opinion about some of the report's conclusions, but the importance of that matter is undoubted. The contribution that the royal commission has made to the debate on those matters is undoubted and the Government will give its recommendations the most careful consideration and then come to conclusions about what to do.

Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Tyler: Is the Lord President aware that the Prime Minister visited north Cornwall exactly five months ago today and promised my constituents that he was taking action on excessive water and sewerage charges? Will he confirm whether it is the Government's policy to renege on existing environmental obligations or does he intend to break that promise?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to my right hon. Friend's visit to the south-west and to his recognition of the concern felt in the south-west, and much expressed by my hon. Friends, about the level of water charges. My right hon. Friends have been actively examining the options for reducing the increase in charges and, particularly, phasing in the burdens of the waste water directive in a way that would help. That consideration is going on at the moment.

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Senator Campos, who is currently leading a Brazilian Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Westminster, when he said last night that Brazil is not just a country of the future, nor Britain just a country of the past, but that both are countries for today? Is that not best illustrated by the figures for Jaguar cars, which show that output has gone up 46 per cent., exports to Germany and the United States by 20 per cent., and that confidence in that company is greater than for many years.

Mr. Newton: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in Brazil and echo the welcome that he has given to the visitors who are here from that country. I join him also in hoping that they may boost Jaguar car sales still further by taking some back with them. Meanwhile, I endorse my hon. Friend's pleasure at the British motor industry in accelerating away from its European competitors and links with the figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that we were discussing earlier.

Ms Abbott: If the Government are really concerned about single mothers on benefit, when will they bring forward a strategy for child care? Is the Minister aware that most women on benefit would dearly like to go out to work and be independent but that their main problem is child care? When will the Government understand that investment in child care would be an investment in growth in general, and the surest and most humane way to get women off social security?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will be familiar with the increase in pre-school provision of all kinds in recent years. She will also be well aware that at least as important a part of a policy in the area with which she is concerned are those policies for the improved collection and enforcement of child maintenance represented by the Child Support Agency, now getting successfully under way.

Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is it correct to say that my right hon. Friend's colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry have secured a further £2 billion of help from European Community structural funds to help two of the most disadvantaged areas of the United Kingdom? If so, is that not proof of the merits of working vigorously and whole-heartedly within the Community, rather than constantly fretting about our relationship with it?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the whole House will wish to pay tribute to the Minister for Industry on his negotiating success in the Community at the end of last week. He succeeded in reaching an agreement which will extend objective 1 status under the structural fund to Merseyside and to the Highlands and Islands enterprise area, and to the areas Argyll, Bute and West Moray which were not proposed by the Commission. That agreement is likely to bring about


£2·25 billion to the United Kingdom over the next six years, to all its objective 1 areas, including Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bryan Davies: With regard to political contributions, why is it all one way? What incentives do the Government give to rich Britons to make political contributions to right-wing regimes abroad, or does the whole idea stink?

Mr. Newton: As I may possibly have said on some previous occasion, I will listen to lectures from such as the hon. Gentleman on that matter when we stop facing the prospect of a position in the Labour party where it will be one man, 2 million votes.

Points of Order

Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that a few weeks ago, the new Minister of State for the Armed Forces, to whom I have given notice of my intention to raise this point, proclaimed at the Dispatch Box his concern for the welfare of the serving men and women of this country. As a result, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence about my constituent, Brian Marshall, from south Kirby, who is suffering from what is known as desert fever. That gentleman has lost two stone in weight and is having difficulty climbing stairs—

Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member come to the point of order for me?

Mr. Enright: Having written to the right hon. Gentleman about the matter, I was astonished last evening to hear the Minister of State declare on television that he had received no representations about people suffering from desert fever. I suggest that that is unacceptable behaviour—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that I shall not allow a debate on the matter. It is not an issue for me. He must take it up with the Minister concerned. I cannot adjudicate on the accuracy of what is said in the course of television programmes—

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): rose—

Madam Speaker: —and that is the end of that.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House will know that there has been a serious incursion into the precincts of Buckingham palace and an evident lack of security, with no fewer than 17 people within the curtilage. The Home Secretary is at present the police authority for London, and is responsible for the protection of Her Majesty.
I am wondering, Madam Speaker, whether you have received a request for a statement to be made about the matter to the House and, if not, whether the Home Secretary, having heard this exchange, will lose no opportunity to come forward and explain what steps have been taken.

Madam Speaker: I have not received a communication from a Minister seeking to make a statement. The occupants of the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Hanley: rose—

Madam Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is rising?

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Yes, on a point of order, Madam Speaker. You correctly pointed out to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) that he was out of order. May I ask you to point out to him also that we in the Labour party refer to one member, one vote, and not one man, one vote?

Madam Speaker: I understand the point that the hon. Lady is putting to me. When I was a Back Bencher, I used to get very annoyed when speakers referred all the time to "hon. Gentlemen".

Mr. Hanley: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point of order about which I think the Minister is seeking to rise. I must deal with Ministers and Back Benchers in exactly the same way. Having dealt with the point of order, it is now a question between the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and the Minister. They must resolve it between them. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Reverting to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), when Princess Anne was apprehended by a madman in Pall Mall, the Home Secretary gave a statement that very day. I am sure that the House would wish to know precisely what has happened at Buckingham Palace today.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench have noted the wishes of the House.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will allow me to make my point, and forgive me if it appears to return to a previous point. As the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) did not begin with a proper point of order, how can it be fair for the Minister to he prevented from giving an answer?

Madam Speaker: I have to deal with so many bogus points of order in this place—I have hardly heard a genuine point of order in the past six months.

Mr. Harry Barnes: How long should it take for an answer to be given in Hansard after a question is posed? On 3 December, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked for information to be provided from the Northern Ireland Office about people who had been killed due to paramilitary violence, and the sites of the killings. I asked a similar but wider question of the Prime Minister on 7 June and requested information about those killed by paramilitary violence in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The information forthcoming in both instances was, "This material will be supplied in the Library in due course.- The "due course" seems to be a tremendous amount of time. It might be appropriate for us to follow up those questions today, the day on which John Matthews has been released. He had faced a false charge involving the London taxi bombs. The City of Derry is celebrating the fact that today that false accusation has not been carried through. We need information about who has been correctly convicted.

Madam Speaker: It is a matter for the Minister, and I suggest that, if the hon. Gentleman tables a further question, he might be able to obtain the information that he now seeks.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I apologise for raising this point, Madam Speaker, but you have always been terribly fair. When someone has raised a bogus point of order or tried to score a point at another hon. Member's expense, you have always been fair and allowed the subject


of the point of order to respond, if only briefly. I wonder whether you might consider allowing my hon. Friend the Minister to do that.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not been following my habits in the past year. Once I have dealt with a point of order, even if it is a bogus one, that is the end of it. I will not allow exchanges on bogus points of order to continue across the Chamber.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

TERRORISM

That the draft Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (Application of Provisions) (India) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 99(2) (Matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland).

STATUTORY RULES

That the Thirty-Fourth Report from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, being a Matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Births and Deaths Registration (Amendment)

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 in relation to the place of registration of deaths in England and Wales.
The Bill would amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to enable deaths to be registered in any district in England and Wales, not simply, as at present, in the district where the death occurred.
One might have thought that a death could be registered with any recognised registrar, but that is not so, as I discovered from an elderly constituent of mine, a lady in her 70s, living in Chester, whose 95-year-old mother died in a nursing home in Kent. To register the death, my constituent, the only surviving relative, was obliged to travel hundreds of miles, at considerable expense and inconvenience, at a time of great personal sadness, to complete a bureaucratic formality which could equally well have been undertaken in Chester.
The lady's case may be unusual, but is by no means unique. The National Consumer Council has alerted me to a comparable case in which a daughter had to register her mother's death in Ely, because the nursing home in which the lady's mother died fell within the Ely district, although the nursing home was closer to Cambridge, where the funeral was to take place, while the bereaved daughter lived in Worcester.
The registrar would not have welcomed registration of the death either by the proprietor of the nursing home or by the undertaker, so one afternoon the daughter travelled from Worcester to Ely for that purpose, only to discover, when she got there, that the registrar's office was open for business from 9 am until noon only, and on just three days a week.
While it is obviously gratifying for the good people of East Anglia to feel that the rate of mortality in Ely is such that it justifies a week of only nine hours on the part of the registrar, it is clearly absurd, and in truth unnecessary, for people already having to cope with the trauma of bereavement, perhaps involved in the making of funeral arrangements, and possibly elderly themselves, to have this additional administrative burden thrust upon them.
In the age of the telephone and the fax, it must make sense to introduce a system whereby a death can be registered in any district in any part of the country, thus relieving bereaved people of the difficulty and the expense of travelling to the district where the death occurred. It must make sense.
Indeed, as we can see, it does make sense, which is why a benevolent Government made such a proposal in the White Paper on registration back in January 1990, with a promise of legislation at "an early opportunity". Three and a half years later, that early opportunity has still failed to present itself, which is where I and my Bill step in.
Having been a Member of the House for only about 15 months, I pride myself on still being loosely in touch with reality. Unjust as it may seem to Members of Parliament, there are in the real world some who look on our proceedings with a mixture of scorn and incredulity.
They partially understand our role in the constituency as that odd amalgam of citizens advice bureau, untrained Relate counsellor, housing officer, doormat, punchbag


and inveterate function attender with an insatiable appetite for finger food and raffle tickets. But to many of them our purpose at Westminster is less clear. This weekend, one of my constituents said to me, "What do you MPs do?" Before I had a chance to offer a dignified reply, he went on, "Whatever it is, I wish you would do less of it."
I believe in less legislation, less regulation and less bureaucracy, and in the validity of William Blake's dictum that he who would do good must do it by minute particulars. My Bill is a very modest measure. It is not significant. It is not spectacular. It is not even controversial. It will not make a noise, but to a few people it might make a difference. That is why I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mrs. Angela Knight and Mr. John Sykes.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Gyles Brandreth accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 in relation to the place of registration of deaths in England and Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 July, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]

Orders of the Day — European Parliamentary Elections Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

INCREASE IN NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out '71' and insert '70'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 10, after '"71"' insert—
'(ba) in paragraph (b) (Scotland) for "8" there shall be substituted "9".'.
No. 9, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
'(bb) in paragraph (b) (Scotland) for "8" there shall be substituted "9"; and '.
No. 3, in page 1, line 16, leave out '"71"' and insert '"70".'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 16, after '"71"' insert—
'(ba) in paragraph (b) (Scotland) for "8" there shall be substituted "9".'.
No. 12, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
'(bb) in paragraph (b) (Scotland) for "8" there shall be substituted "9".'.
No. 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, after 'England', insert 'Scotland'.
No. 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, after 'England' insert 'Scotland'.

Mrs. Ewing: It is strange that my amendment should be the lead amendment in this group. I am grateful to the members of other parties who have associated themselves with my amendment. I had thought that I might speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box, but Labour Members might not have found my company especially agreeable. From time to time we do not find each other's company agreeable, but today we are agreed on the serious principle of Scotland's representation within the European Community.

Mr. Graham Allen: In the spirit adopted by the hon. Lady, we congratulate her on doing such a fine job of hijacking the Opposition's amendment by tabling her amendment before we managed to table ours.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should congratulate my research officer, who did a great deal of work on the issue, although I recognise that other hon. Members have been working along the same lines. Within the procedures of the House, the way the cookie crumbles very much dictates who has the key amendment.
We are having difficulties with the allocation of the additional seats in the European Parliament. The principle of increased membership was agreed at the Edinburgh


summit last December, yet it is not until the hot, sticky days of July that we are considering the implications and knock-on effects of that decision.
There were earlier opportunities to consider the matter and to have discussions between the various parties in the House. Instead, we are considering the issue in an air of panic, because the Government have introduced the Bill without giving the House a full opportunity to explore all its aspects.
The Government should not always base their arguments on the niceties of numbers. Last week, we all received from the Home Secretary various details about the number of and comparisons between the seats in Scotland, Wales and England. Northern Ireland is exempt, because it has proportional representation.
The niceties of numbers are not in the spirit of the Community. The Home Secretary's comments during our debate last Wednesday—in particular, those reported in column 984 of Hansard—show that he was using a British state argument rather than looking at the Community as a whole. If we are to enter into the spirit of the Community, any additional representation should not be seen as just a numerical gain: it should properly reflect the various peoples of the Community.
Those on the Treasury Bench suffer from the delusion that Britain is a nation. It is not; it is a state that combines three natural nation communities—Scotland, England and Wales. Underpinning the philosophy of the European Community is the idea that the smaller nations should not be penalised because of size, and that they should be recognised as equal partners. My contention today is that Scotland should be recognised as an equal partner, and that it should have additional seats.
I have long pursued that argument with various Government representatives. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 14 January, subsequent to the Edinburgh summit, asking how decisions would be made on the allocation of the six additional seats. He responded:
We are now looking at how to allocate the six new seats as between the different parts of the United Kingdom. This distribution will eventually have to be enacted in legislation. The Scots, but also others, will be watching carefully to see that this is fairly done.
We are seeking a very careful distribution of these seats.
I go back to the idea that there should be equality within the communities. I have brought with me a copy of the autobiography of Garret Fitzgerald, who was, at the time of the original direct elections to the European Parliament, the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland. He talks in this book, "All in a Life", about Ireland's role within the European Community and the negotiations on the initial allocation of seats for direct election to the European Parliament.
I want to read this paragraph into the record of the House of Commons, because I believe that we should all be aware of the arguments that were used by the then Government. I do not think that it will be enough for the Minister to respond by saying that it was then a Labour Government. The principles that underpin these comments should be looked at:
Callaghan and Crosland came to us to say that they were going to propose 82 seats for the larger countries, which would enable them to give an extra seat to Northern Ireland as well as an extra seat to Scotland and Wales, bringing these to 10 and five seats respectively. We told them we would go along with this. In the end, at Giscard d'Estaing's urging in a top-of-the-table huddle, Callaghan said he would settle for 81 seats by dropping an extra seat claimed for England.

So it was agreed, but in the event, interestingly enough, Scotland and Wales never got their extra seats. Although the need to make greater provision for Scotland and Wales had been the basis of the British argument for more seats, it was to England that the additional seats were allocated. Scotland's proposed 10 was reduced to eight and Wales's five became four, whilst England got 66 instead of the 63 implicit in what Callaghan and Crosland had said to us.
That is the record of the initial arguments about the allocation of directly elected seats to the European Parliament. I could argue, of course, that Scotland, being comparable to Denmark, with roughly the same population, should automatically have 16 seats. I recognise that that can be achieved only when Scotland is an independent nation—when we, too, will be allowed to participate in the Council of Ministers, to have our opportunity, not to be the tartan waitress at a European summit in Edinburgh, but to be the host country and to have, in our own right, the position of chief in the commission.
The argument for Scotland to have an additional seat is increasingly important. The Community is changing very rapidly. It has already been said quite clearly that, with the accession of additional members, the Community institutions will have to change. The Maastricht treaty makes it quite clear that the Parliament will acquire additional powers, and I for one welcome that.
I have no particular neurosis about this place being the mother of Parliaments and the seat of all democracy. I believe that the future for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England lies within the European Community. I want to move towards consensus politics within the Community.
Because the institutions are going to change, the influence of each voice will be particularly important. I know that the Minister, along with colleagues in the Cabinet, is very aware of the importance that has recently been attached to the argument for structural funds. Indeed, the Leader of the House referred to this in his capacity as substitute for the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions today.
The Parliament in Europe had a great deal of influence in persuading the Commission that the whole of the Highlands and Islands enterprise unit should be included within objective I. A great deal of work was undertaken by the member of the European Parliament for the Highlands and Islands—and I must declare an interest because of the family relationship.
That Parliament voted by 277 votes to 27 in favour of the whole of the Highlands and Islands enterprise area being included within objective 1 status. If one MEP, exerting that influence, can achieve that result, surely Scotland should be entitled to additional representation.
I notice that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is laughing. He should recognise that part of the victory was achieved because his party did not care to send a Scottish Office representative to the negotiations. Perhaps we should learn from that. Perhaps, when the Department of Trade and Industry represents Scotland's interests, we achieve the results that we want.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Let me endorse what the hon. Lady has said about the role of her mother-in-law, the MEP for Highlands and Islands, who fought very hard on this issue. I am sure that the hon. Lady will also recognise the role of my colleagues Hugh MacMahon, MEP for Strathclyde, West,and Henry McCubbin, MEP for North-East Scotland, and also that


of the socialist group, which gave its backing to the same proposals. If ever there was a team effort on behalf of a Scottish interest, that was surely it. I am sure that Liberal MEPs were also involved.

Mrs. Ewing: I am not trying to claim all the credit for the MEP for Highlands and Islands. There was a great deal of cross-party co-operation, and Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament have joined me in various representations. There was also the influence of Highland regional council, the various local enterprise companies and the district councils, all of which were very much involved.
My point is that there was an opportunity, through the influence of an MEP, to persuade the Commission to recognise that its original idea that there should be exclusions from objective 1 status in the highlands and islands area was an example of how political life can operate within the European Community. We want that spirit of community to be pursued, and we want additional representation for Scotland in that regard.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I readily accept the argument that this is a Parliament within a multinational state. The hon. Lady is referring to the European Parliament, which again is a Parliament in a multinational state. She has referred to the powers given to the European Parliament by article 189b of the Maastricht treaty; would she like the powers of that Parliament to be extended to enable it, say, to initiate European Community-wide legislation?

Mrs. Ewing: I certainly believe that the European Parliament has a major role to play in the development of economic and social policy. Progress must be made slowly and on the basis of consensus. That is why I am keen for Scotland to be an equal partner in this development.
I think that hon. Members from all parties will agree that we want to avoid the imposition of an ideology by one or two countries of the Community. We should reach a consensus through mutual discussion and agreement in terms of initiating programmes, but the initiation process, in many ways, should now be transferred from this place to the European Parliament. I believe that the development of the Community is of critical importance, not just to Scotland and the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom, but to the international community as a whole. I look forward to these developments.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her concise answer. An expansion of the legislative powers of the European Parliament must surely lead to a diminution of the powers of the national legislatures. What does she feel about that shift in the distribution of legislative powers between the European Parliament and the national Parliament?

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman and I both sit on the Select Committee on European Legislation. I would not describe this as a national Parliament; I would describe it as a multinational state Parliament. I would like Scotland to have a national Parliament, and then, according to the Helsinki agreement definition of sovereignty, we will have to decide how much of our national power we wish to pool for the greater good of the Community. That is how I envisage the Community developing. I am sure that the

hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) also noticed, during our various visits to European Community countries, that the vast majority of the politicians we met showed the same flexibility of approach. The pooling of sovereignty is the key to the Community's development.
On the subject of the additional seat, it was argued last week on Second Reading that I advised the Government that the size of the Highlands and Islands constituency should be taken into account, and that an additional seat for Scotland would have an impact upon the Highlands and Islands. I was not arguing that case. I was arguing that, when the Boundary Commission considers the distribution of seats, it should take into account the geography of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I believe that the Highlands and Islands constituency would wish to remain very much as it is, and I would bear no grudges if an additional seat were granted elsewhere in Scotland.
4 pm
I was arguing very clearly, with the support of other hon. Members, that the Highlands and Islands constituency has the land mass of Belgium, stretching for about 350 miles from north to south, and that representing it is a major task. The Member of the European Parliament for the Highlands and Islands willingly accepts the present situation, as I am sure would any subsequent Members, although I do not anticipate a change for a considerable number of years.

Mr. James Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I endorse much that she says about the highlands and islands. Does she also accept that, if the Bill is passed in the form that the Government wish, giving five seats to England, three seats in Scotland will have higher electorates than the average English electorate; North-East Scotland, with an electorate of 576,776; Mid-Scotland and Fife, with an electorate of 544,649; and Lothian, with an electorate of 522,020? Therefore, three of Scotland's eight seats will have larger electorates than the average now given to England by the Government.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has a valid argument, which reaffirms those made last week on Second Reading: that numbers cannot be the sole criterion on which we base the allocation of seats. Full account must be taken of geography, but we must also take into account the valuable arguments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

Mr. Tony Marlow: They were not valuable arguments at all. They were absolute nonsense, statistically speaking. If some seats in Scotland have more constituents than the average in England, some seats in England will also have more than the average number of constituents for England.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman misses the point about the principles of the Community. He is quite willing to be seen as a European sceptic who does not believe in the Community. We have argued that Scotland should be compared with Denmark, which has 16 seats in the European Parliament, that Wales should be compared with Eire, which has 15 seats, and that England could be


compared with whichever country it wishes to be compared with, and have seats in its own right in the European Parliament.
That is a Community issue. It is not an argument about the debates between internal political parties in the House of Commons or in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but what about my constituents? What about the people of Northamptonshire, which does not even have a whole European seat and yet has a bigger population than Luxembourg, which has six Members of the European Parliament? Where is the justice in that?

Mrs. Ewing: Edinburgh, which has roughly the same population as Luxembourg, does not have an MEP either. If the hon. Gentleman would only enter into the spirit of the European Community, he would recognise that, if England were an independent nation within the Community, it might be entitled to additional representation.
It is not a question of Scotland playing England off against Scotland or Wales. This is an argument about the spirit of the Community, and about ensuring that we all enter it with a rational approach and share the ideal of making the Community work as effectively as possible.
Last week, the Home Secretary was gratuitously rude to me in some of his responses. It is not my intention to be rude in responding to him, but I believe that there is a valid argument for Scotland to have an additional seat in the European Parliament.
After all, Scotland is the main oil producer for the European Community; we are the most energy-rich nation. We have the major fishing grounds, yet our fishing grounds are being invaded by other members of the Community, who do not seem to be affected in the same way as our fishermen—by the application of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, for example. All that makes us a most valuable member of the Community.
I believe that Scotland deserves more than eight representatives in the European Parliament, especially in view of the way in which that Parliament will develop as a result of the changes introduced in the Maastricht treaty.
During the debate last week, the Home Secretary said that only the Conservative party was prepared to fight for England. I do not believe that. I want England to be an equal partner with Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and all the other Community nations. The Home Secretary's remark was stupid, and it has caused much offence not only in the United Kingdom but in other parts of the Community, where there are different attitudes and responses, and where we work towards the idea of consensus rather than confrontation in our politics.
The Secretary of State for Scotland laid great emphasis on the fact that the Community held its summit in Edinburgh. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said last week, in November 1992, the Secretary of State made a speech entitled "Taking Scotland to the Heart of Europe", in which he argued forcibly:
If we are to take Scotland to the heart of Europe, we must be Communautaire"—
that is the spirit to which I referred—
but we must also have clout in the Community.
To have clout in the community, we must have the representation that our country merits.
In the same speech, the Secretary of State said:

it is necessary to build Scotland's own links, both commercial and cultural, with other parts of the Community.
The most effective achievement of that aim must surely come through representation within the Community institutions.
The fact that Scotland is being denied an additional seat in the European Parliament reminds us only too well that the Government regarded Scotland as the tartan waitress at the summit. They are happy to serve haggis, and to sell our smoked salmon, our whisky and a variety of the other marvellous products of Scotland, but at the same time they deny us the full and equal representation that we so obviously merit.
In refusing to allocate Scotland an additional seat, the Government are reneging on the principles of European co-operation, reneging on what the Secretary of State said in Scotland about the future of Scotland within Europe, and reneging on the people of Scotland themselves.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am happy to agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). At the beginning, she spoke, if I may say so, with an uncharacteristic immodesty perhaps more typical of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) than of herself. But I am sure that she does not mind joining me, and joining my right hon. and hon. Friends in whose names the amendment was tabled.
Understandably, the hon. Lady crowed about the role of her distinguished mother-in-law, but I am sure that even Mrs. Winnie Ewing would agree that objective 1 status was the result of a concerted effort by many people, including many Scottish Labour MEPs and other colleagues in the socialist group. To them, as well as to Mrs. Winnie Ewing, we owe a great deal of gratitude. That gratitude is widespread, because an enormous amount of effort went into that achievement. I hope that none of that sounds churlish, because I agree with the hon. Lady and with the opinions of my right hon. Friends, as expressed in the amendment. But there is, of course, a strong case for an additional seat, and particularly an additional seat in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) failed to take it on board that geography comes into those matters. Perhaps one ought not to be surprised at that, if one heard the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate the other day. However, geography comes into such matters, and was embraced by one of the earlier Acts that dealt with boundary distribution. The Government have given little thought to the importance of geography and to Scotland's special needs and rights.
For example, it is a simple fact that the average size of European parliamentary seat in Scotland is about 3,000 square miles, compared with a mere 700 square miles for England. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is leaving the Chamber. No one wishes to deny any country in the United Kingdom the representation that it feels is appropriate to its needs.
If it had been suggested at the Edinburgh summit that Scotland would not get the extra seat, people in Scotland would have been amazed. As with so many promises that we have had in Scotland, including promises about Rosyth and Ravenscraig, people expected that the Secretary of State meant what he said when he implied strongly that he would give his support to Scotland getting the extra seat. He also implied that, in a sense, the seat was in the bag.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The hon. Gentleman made the same point on Second Reading. I said then that I had not read my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland's speech. I have now read it. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the same speech, my right hon. Friend made no reference to the European Parliament. He was talking about the Committee of the Regions.
I could find no trace of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saying that he was expecting, pushing for or otherwise considering an extra seat in the European Parliament for Scotland. He concentrated strongly on the opportunities that the Committee of the Regions would provide for Scotland.

Mr. Clarke: . If the hon. Gentleman re-reads the Secretary of State's St. Andrews speech, he will see that, although his right hon. Friend dealt at length with the Committee of the Regions, the main thrust of the speech was that the Secretary of State was fighting for Scotland's influence in Europe to be increased and for stronger representation.
I refer the Minister to what the Government claim to be one of most important documents to have been presented to the people of Scotland, entitled "Taking Stock". That document arose from the commitment of the Prime Minister, no less, during the election campaign to take stock of the thoughts of the people of Scotland. In the document, the Secretary of State said that the Government would
take steps to complement and add to Scotland's strong
representation in Europe."
I assume that, if the Minister has done his homework, he will have read that introduction. I would like to discover how the terminology can be converted—even in this place—to mean that no extra seat means an extension or an addition.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would provide a chapter and verse reference, rather than a generality. He has given no direct quote from the Secretary of State which refers to the European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman quotes only my right hon. Friend's references to representation.
I have read my right hon. Friend's Edinburgh speech. He referred to the Committee of the Regions, to various offices and to the ways Scotland could have its interests conveyed and supported within the EC. The speech made no reference to the European Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman can find such a reference, I should be glad if he would underline it and pass it across the Dispatch Box to me. I have not yet seen it.

Mr. Clarke: The Government usually manage to turn words on their head, but this is rum. If the Government have redeemed any of their promises by failing to add to Scotland's representation in the European Parliament, I should like the Minister to tell me how they have been responsible for any addition to Scotland's representation. If we do not have increased Scottish representation in the only democratically elected body in Europe, where else are we to have it?
Are we to believe in the placepersons whom the Government appoint to various quangos in Europe, as they propose to do in Scottish local government and as they have already done in the health service? The

Government are dodging the issue of direct representation based on the electorate of Scotland deciding what is best for them.

Mrs. Ewing: I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman recalls that, in his St. Andrews speech, the Secretary of State said that he welcomed the Maastricht treaty for two particular reasons. The first reason he outlined was the strengthening of the role of the European Parliament. As the Secretary of State for Scotland argued for the strengthening of the role of the European Parliament and its links with Scotland, one assumed that he was arguing for additional representation.

Mr. Clarke: In the St. Andrews speech to which the Minister referred, the Secretary of State said:
It can only be good news for Scotland to have her own representation within Europe increased in this way".
He was certainly referring to the Committee of the Regions. He said:
I can assure you that I am bidding high".
One assumed that the Secretary of State was bidding high, not merely for representation on the Committee of the Regions but for an additional European parliamentary seat.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: How does the hon. Gentleman make that out?

Mr. Clarke: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the numerous newspaper clippings which he undoubtedly has in his office. If he does not have them there, I am sure that they are available in New St. Andrew's house. If they are not available there, I am sure that they are available in the well staffed Conservative offices in Edinburgh.
Time after time, acolytes of the Secretary of State for Scotland claimed in those cuttings that he had gained the extra seat. Not once, even on the Floor of the House, did the Secretary of State admit that he had failed, failed and failed again. We did not find out until the Bill was published. No denials were issued when staff of the Secretary of State at St. Andrew's house claimed that Scotland had gained the extra seat.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has talked for the past five minutes about speeches and articles which claim what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said. Could he put on record a quotation?

Mr. Clarke: You would rightly rebuke me for being repetitive if I did so, Mr. Morris. I have already placed on record that dull, uninteresting introduction to the document "Taking Stock", in which a clear commitment was given—and again, not honoured.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South tells me and tells the House that we in Scotland should be happy with a couple of extra meetings of the Scottish Grand' Committee and the doubtful pleasure of Lord Fraser coming to tell us about the health service, but that we shall not have the right democratically to elect an extra representative to Europe. I must inform him that the Scottish people regard that as democracy turned on its head.
There is every reason why the Secretary of State and his acolytes should have honoured the commitment which Scotland understood him to give to obtain an extra seat. When the Bill was published, it was clear that our


Secretary of State had been defeated once again. Our Secretary of State had been beaten. Our Secretary of State had failed.
There was a time when Secretaries of State regarded such failures as a matter for resignation, but we know that, time after time, Tory Secretaries of State for Scotland have their noses rubbed in the dirt and simply accept it. They did so on Ravenscraig and Rosyth, and now they are doing so on representation in Europe. The House will not accept that.
I am not surprised that Labour Members and Members from other parties in Scotland are aghast that this is the Government's offering, after the lengthy period from February to June in which the Government have tune to consider the proposals. That is a long time, notwithstanding the rushed nature of the legislation.
We heard the feeble excuse the other day—I think that it was from the Minister—that we had to deal with Maastricht, and that the House was preoccupied. However, that did not prevent the Government from introducing other measures that were particularly unhelpful to the people of Scotland. Therefore, there is no excuse for the Government taking as long as they did, and in the event getting the wrong answer for Scotland.
I can understand why some hon. Members, who have since left the Chamber, made their silly points. I do not quite understand why the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South seems so enthusiastic about dismissing the fact that even Europe accepts that Scotland is a nation. It should not be dismissed simply as a region.
We are a nation, with a great history and with cultural links with the rest of Europe and the world. The geographical points that have been made suggest that we will be under-represented when compared with other nations, not just within the United Kingdom but elsewhere. I do not see how that can be justified.
The Government's proposals utterly fail to take on board the distinctiveness of Scotland as an individual nation within the United Kingdom and Europe. They fail to take on board the sparsity of population in certain areas. The Highlands and Islands seat makes that point. It is larger, as we have argued, than some countries within the Community.
The fact that those geographical issues have to be taken on board means that there is a distinct danger that the needs of the rest of Scotland, particularly those parts where there is considerable deprivation and where there is what some people describe, although I do not like the word, as an underclass, will not be established and dealt with in Europe. We should be looking for a response within Europe.
The same applies to rural areas. For example, I have not yet had an answer to the fact that the average Scottish seat covers an area of 3,000 square miles, compared with an average area of 700 square miles in England. The Government seem to think that we should accept that and go home feeling happy.
The Government have failed to take those arguments on board. They have failed to consider Scotland's remoteness from the United Kingdom and EC centres of power. I find it odd that, if indeed the Secretary of State for Scotland is as committed to Scotland's interests as he claimed in his St. Andrews speech and his introduction to the stocktaking exercise, he has not once appeared at any of these debates, and nor has any other Minister from the Scottish Office.
Scotland deserves far more than that. An English Tory Member of Parliament who happens to be the Scottish Whip is no substitute for Scottish representation. I hope that we shall see some modesty there that has otherwise been missing.
In the past few rushed weeks, we have considered a Bill about British representation in Europe, which should have meant that we would seize on the opportunity to ensure that Britain's—and that includes Scotland's—voice is heard.
If the Bill is approved and the amendments before the Committee are not accepted, Scotland's share of British seats will fall from 9·9 per cent. to 9·2 per cent. It is not a matter of the Secretary of State failing to honour the pledge that Scotland's representation would be increased. In the Bill, to which the Secretary of State has given his support, we see a decrease in Scottish representation, and that is entirely unacceptable.
If we disregard for the moment representation from the highlands and islands, lowland Scotland is less well represented than even Wales. I welcome the extra seat for Wales—and not just because my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) has been kind enough to join us on the Front Bench, in contrast to the apathy of Scottish Tory Ministers.
If the amendments are accepted, the average representation for Scotland outwith the highlands and islands will be about the same as for Wales. I am sure that our Welsh colleagues, who are generous and in no sense inward-looking on these matters, will agree that that is perfectly reasonable.
The people of Scotland look forward, as they did even before the Edinburgh summit, to improving and increasing our links with Europe. We were proud of the appointment of Bruce Millan as a Commissioner, and we thank him for the contribution that he has made. But there is no substitute, and there can be no substitute—I disagree strongly with the Minister if he is telling us that the Secretary of State for Scotland is merely arguing for a stronger Scottish voice in Europe, but not one that has been approved by the electorate—for democratic representation as expressed at the ballot box, and it is for that that we are pleading today.
Apart from Tory Ministers and those who support the Tory arguments in Committee today, Scotland is completely united on the issue. We have the support of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Constitutional Convention—[Laughter.]—and even, as I understand' it—before the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South laughs again—of the Scottish CBI. Apart from the Scottish Tory party—we are not even sure about that—virtually no one in Scotland gives succour to the Government's position on the matter.
If we have—as we were told when the Prime Minister came to Scotland at the election and said that he would involve himself in listening and stocktaking—a Government who, despite all their history, are prepared to do that, the arguments presented today by the hon. Member for Moray and, I am sue, in due course, by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and by the Labour party are unanswerable.
We are facing in the Bill a mean-minded Government, who did not have the guile to see the damage that they were doing to the United Kingdom to which they say that they are committed, who did not have the judgment to see that Scotland should have that improved representation,


and who, in view of the fact that they seem to stir up political marks night after night as they are doing with Scottish local government reform, were not magnanimous enough to accept that the Scottish people have a contribution to make.
If the Government go ahead with this proposal, they are selling Scotland, Britain and Europe short, and, in time, all that will be reversed.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: It may seem peculiar that a Member from the other extremity of the United Kingdom should rise on what seems to be, and has been argued as, an entirely parochial matter of Scottish propaganda versus the Government.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the word "parochial" refers to a parish. We have been debating a nation. Will he please withdraw that comment?

Mr. Rathbone: Of course I withdraw it if it hurts the legal refinements of argument with which the hon. Gentleman likes to demean himself. I used the word "parochial" to embrace all of Scotland, and it was in no way meant to be demeaning.
We are here talking about the representation of various parts of the British Isles in the European Parliament, and that is an important question for anyone who is committed, as I believe all hon. Members are, to the proper operation of parliamentary democracy.
I happen to agree with the thrust of the arguments of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider his opinion on the allocation of an additional seat in Scotland. That is correct not only from an idealistic standpoint but from a position of political wisdom, because it is only through the allocation of another European constituency to Scotland that we shall increase the possibility of representation for the large minorities there.
In that caregory, I fear, I must count my own party. I should like to see Conservative representation of the many Conservative interests in that part of the United Kingdom, as I would hope to see all parties representing their own political interests elsewhere in the country.
It is dangerous to concoct—this has to be a concoction —a system of representation with constituency boundaries that tend against giving broad-brush representation of political minorities in any part of the United Kingdom.
4.30 pm
The allocation of another seat to Scotland would also be a practical step. There is room for improvement in our electoral system as it applies to the European Parliament. We shall return to that point under the proposed new part III of the schedule.
Whether that improvement comes within this Bill, or at some point in the future, with the adoption of a pan-European system of elections that would apply to the United Kingdom as well as to other countries, the allocation of an additional MEP to Scotland would be part of it. We must get that right to achieve the correct basis for that system, whenever it may come.
However, without the adoption of a new method of elections, which would enable those minorities in Scotland

or any other part of the United Kingdom to be represented —as part III of the schedule would provide—I suppose that the Minister will argue on a largely numerical basis.
On that basis, the argument of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) did not cast any doubt on the Government's plans. Averages are averages: they are made up of figures above and below. I am not sure that even the enormous area represented by the relative of the hon. Member for Moray in the European Parliament constitutes an argument against the Government's position. I am quite aware of the difficulty in getting round a large constituency as compared with a small one, but with modern forms of communication, especially telephone and mail links, it is possible to represent a considerably larger number of constituents than any one of us currently represents.
I realise that some European Members of Parliament find some difficulty in keeping in touch with their constituents because of the large numbers involved.

Mrs. Ewing: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point about improved communications by telephone and, in particular, by fax. That development has been most important in the highlands and islands, not only because it has improved communication between MEPs or MPs and their constituents but because it has helped to provide employment opportunities.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that Scotland has only 171 people per square mile, whereas England has 955 people per square mile, and that it is important that personal contact should be maintained between an elected representative and his or her constituents?

Mr. Rathbone: I fully accept that fact, but I do not think that it should weigh in the balance in the drawing of constituency lines. It should, however, be taken into account in allocating travel funds, to allow the representative of a large constituency to travel by hedge-hopper plane or helicopter—or, in the case of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), a huge motor cruiser, perhaps.

Dr. Godman: Just before the hon. Gentleman gave way to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), he referred to the need for MEPs to keep in touch with their constituents. Does he agree that MEPs also need to keep in touch with the European Parliament? Absenteeism is far worse in the European Parliament than in this place—indeed, I am told that more than 150 MEPs rarely if ever turn up in Strasbourg.

Mr. Rathbone: I have long believed that people in glass houses should not throw stones, so I do not propose to enter into argument with the hon. Gentleman on that subject.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I promise him that I will not make a specious lawyer's point. I should like him to return to the theme to which he seemed to be warming—ensuring that Members of the European Parliament can get around large constituencies. Perhaps he would like that to be extended to this place, as some of us have more spread-out parliamentary constituencies than others.
The hon. Gentleman has already said that he favours some other form of election, but what the Government propose in the Bill is a first-past-the-post system. Does the


hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great so-called strengths of that system is the identification and sense of community of a single-Member constituency? What sense of community can there possibly be in a constituency the size of the south of Scotland, which stretches from East Lothian down to Stranraer and Galloway, up to Cunninghame, South and across to the border with England in Coldstream. How can a single Member succeeding in a first-past-the-post system identify with such a disparate community

Mr. Rathbone: I will not be tempted into discussing methods of elections, to which I think we come later in the Bill. I am glad to see that you, Mr. Morris, are indicating your assent for my analysis.

The Chairman: I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to misinterpret the movements of my eyes or head. I was merely indicating that the hon. Gentleman should stay firmly on the group of amendments before the Committee and not anticipate anything at all.

Mr. Rathbone: I was correctly analysing the movement of your head, eyes and any other part of your anatomy that may have been indicating agreement, Mr. Morris.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland sells himself short. On my frequent and extremely happy visits to Scotland, I have found that there is a much greater sense of community over a much larger area in Scotland than in most parts of the United Kingdom, and certainly in most parts of England. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman finds that degree of cohesion in his constituency, and that MEPs find coalescence of opinion in theirs.
We should not be tied in these matters to numerical definitions or to local argument on a statistical or quasi-statistical basis about what is fair. We must make political judgments.
In that respect, I suggest to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they may have made the incorrect political judgment in not allocating an additional European parliamentary constituency to Scotland—even though that could detract from the additional representation that could be given to England, which, as we know, has been under-represented vis-a-vis Scotland in this House for years and years.

Mr. Wallace: I certainly endorse the conclusions of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). There is a strong political argument for Scotland to have additional representation, even at the expense of their being one fewer seat for England. What the hon. Gentleman said, and the political judgment that lies behind it—he is a strong supporter of the European Community—is one that I am sure he identifies in the Community.
Population is often of secondary importance to the identification of communities and nation states within communities. Luxembourg, whose population is much the same size as that of Edinburgh, has six Members of the European Parliament, whereas Edinburgh has one Member for the whole of Lothian. No one in the Community perceives that as inimical to the whole balance of the Community and the loading of numbers. Indeed, it is part and parcel of the make-up of the Community. That is why the hon. Gentleman presents an important case for Scotland having an extra seat. I hope to give that case some additional support through the use of some statistics.
The hon. Gentleman is perhaps optimistic. I understand that the amendment relating to part III of the schedule has not been selected on the provisional list of amendments. Admittedly, it is provisional list at this stage. As the day goes on, we hope that wiser counsels will prevail and we shall be able to have a proper discussion on how the additional Members of the European Parliament will be elected.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on moving the amendment. She paid tribute to a research assistant who had done a considerable amount of work. I sat down to do the same exercise and go through the Bill. It is a question not simply of deleting one seat from England and adding one to Scotland—there are consequential parts to it. I was about halfway through the exercise when I realised that the research assistant had done the same thing, so there was little point in doing it again. That is why I was only too pleased to add my name to her amendment.
I make the same observation as that of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—no Scottish Office Minister is present for this debate. At the conclusion of the debate on Wednesday, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland slipped on to the Government Front Bench. As no Scottish Office Ministers are present when we are debating an amendment that focuses on Scotland's representation in the European Parliament, it raises the question: what are they doing? Perhaps some of us have a shrewd idea of what they may be doing. It may be part and parcel of what is involved in this amendment.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Scottish Office Ministers may well be preparing some answers for Scottish questions tomorrow? It would be a unique situation if we actually received answers to our questions. Alternatively, they may be looking at the changes to the local government boundaries.

Mr. Wallace: I suspect that it may be a combination of a number of things. My point—this relates to what the hon. Lady said about local government boundaries—is that we have similar sides of the same coin. The Conservative party had a lack of success in Scotland and the Liberal Democrats were even less successful. We both ended up with no seats in the European Parliament. [Interruption.] We were both equally unsuccessful. The Greens beat us. It is true that it would not happen today. Under the first-past-the-post system, what does it matter whether one knocks up second place, fifth place, third place or fourth place? That is the problem with that system.
The Conservative party was unsuccessful. Therefore, one can understand why it is reluctant to allow another seat in Scotland. It probably realised that in the present climate—after Rosyth and Ravenscraig and all the Government's false and broken promises—there was little chance that the Conservative party would win the seat.
The Government's lack of electoral success in European elections has led them not to allow Scotland an extra seat. Later this week, they will probably propose local government boundaries that will be gerrymandered to try to ensure Conservative councils. The remarks in The Scotsman clearly show that. It seems that the Boundary Commission has come under some influence with some of its proposals for parliamentary seats.

Dr. Godman: With regard to the protection and promotion of the needs of Scotland, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, over the next few years, the role played by Scotland's MEPs will be more decisive and important than the role performed by the Scottish members of the Committee of the Regions?

Mr. Wallace: That is true. I shall illustrate that point in a moment by quoting a speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has identified the growing importance of the European Parliament. The identification of that importance seems to be at odds with doing absolutely nothing to enhance the role of Scotland in the European Parliament. It has been noted that the Secretary of State for Scotland is one of the names on this Bill. I shall certainly return to that, because the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) makes an important point.
My point is that the Conservative party, having reached an impasse or rock bottom in terms of its electoral success in Scotland, must now resort to electoral fixes to get some representation. Of course, that cannot be in the democratic interests of Scotland as a whole.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Lewes. I recall the St. Andrews speech of the Secretary of State, which has been referred to on a number of occasions in this debate. The passage I remember the most is the part where he talked about Scottish Office Ministers being in the boiler room of the European debate. It conjured up a wonderful picture of the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, the hon. Members for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), in their boiler suits, stoking the furnace and, as usual, coming forward with little results.
On objective 1 status, success was won by the Minister for Industry when no Scottish Minister could attend such an important European Council meeting where Scotland's vital interests were at stake.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: It worked out okay.

Mr. Wallace: I accept that it worked out okay.

Mr. Robertson: It is a United Kingdom formula.

Mr. Wallace: It is the United Kingdom and I have no objections to what the Minister for Industry achieved, but it is significant that the Scottish Office could not send anyone to the meeting to enhance Scotland's case on an important issue for Scotland. It may be a matter for some debate, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will rule me out of order if I go down that line to say that the Minister for Industry succeeded in spite of rather than because of the absence of Scottish Office Ministers.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I think that it was "because of".

Mr. Wallace: That may be an interesting debate, but I am sure that I will not be allowed to pursue it at any great length.
I turn to the St. Andrews speech of the Secretary of State, which the hon. Member for Moray quoted. When the Home Office Minister asked for chapter and verse, it was clear that he had not paid any attention to the passage quoted by the hon. Member for Moray. For his benefit, I quote it again:

In this connection, I welcome the Maastricht Treaty for two reasons in particular. Firstly, because it strengthens the role of the European Parliament, where Scotland is directly represented. Scotland has 8 MEPs and while I may have my political differences with them, I am anxious to work in partnership with them to further Scotland's interests in Europe. As a consequence of the Maastricht Treaty, the elected European Parliament"—
this is the point referred to by the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), although I am not sure that he was so strong on it—
will have more financial control over the unelected Commission, thus improving significantly the accountability of that key EC institution. This dramatic departure from past practice was the result of British ideas being taken on board by our European partners. That shows that Britain does have clout in the Community. It shows how that clout works for Scotland. And it also illustrates our desire to make the Community as a whole more accountable.
Many of us support the enhanced importance of the role of the European Parliament. That role has been enhanced by the Maastricht treaty and many of us would like to see it enhanced even more by necessary democratic input to European affairs and the Community. At present, decisions affecting more aspects of our lives are made by the Council of Minister in secret meetings. We would like to see a much greater role for the European Parliament and, of course, we want the voice of Scotland to be more powerful in that Parliament.
The Secretary of State for Scotland may have identified the strength and role of the European Parliament, but one assumes that if he were doing his job for Scotland, he would try to increase Scotland's representation in that Parliament when that possibility was on offer. Far from doing that, however, the right hon Gentleman is a sponsor of a Bill that will not increase Scotland's representation and role in that Parliament.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I, too, had noted that paragraph from my right hon. Friend's speech for use in my own speech. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting it on the record, because it answers the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who sought to convey to the House the idea that, in that speech, the Secretary of State had pledged himself to effecting an increase in Scottish representation.
As that paragraph makes absolutely clear. however, my right hon. Friend pledged himself to work closely with Scotland's eight MEPs, even if he disagreed with them politically, for the benefit of Scotland. That was the undertaking that he sought to make and that is the undertaking that, uncharacteristically cunningly, the hon. Member for Monklands, West tried to convert into a promise to increase the representation of Scotland in the European Parliament.
That was plainly not what my right hon. Friend said, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for putting my right hon. Friend's actual promise on the record.

Mr. Wallace: I remember when I used to appear before the second division of the Court of Session presided over by Lord Wheatley. Every time I made a point similar to that made by the Minister, Lord Wheatley would lean over, look over his glasses and say, "Is that your best point?" I must ask the Minister the same question, because his intervention did not amount to very much.
The Secretary of State for Scotland made his speech on 23 November 1992, some three weeks before the Edinburgh summit at which it was agreed to increase the number of seats at the European Parliament. It is not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the eight Scottish MEPs. For the Minister to seize on that and argue that that meant his right hon. Friend gave a commitment that Scotland should have only eight MEPs is disingenuous. I learnt that good word from the Social Democratic party.
In that speech, the right hon. Gentleman identified the importance of the European Parliament. He also said that it was important that Scotland was directly represented at it. When there was an opportunity to increase Scotland's representation, however, he did nothing. At least to the outside world, he did nothing: he may have fought his battle in Cabinet and lost. There would be nothing unusual about that, because that seems to be his track record. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is a signatory to the Bill does not help Scotland's case, which was well put, for political reasons, by the hon. Member for Lewes. I accept that the Secretary of State has acknowledged the importance of the European Parliament.
The hon. Member for Moray also stressed the important role that that Parliament played in achieving objective 1 status for the highlands and islands and, in particular, extending that to Moray and Argyll and Bute. I pay tribute to the work of the MEP for the Highlands and Islands, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray would accept that that success was gained through cross-party support. When the votes were stacking u p, the support offered by the Liberal Democrat group within the European Parliament was important.
The fishing industry, agriculture, the manufacturing industry and the need for further investment and research are important issues to Scotland. Nowadays, those issues also have an important European dimension. Scotland should have a stronger voice to argue for those interests.
I should like to give the Minister another quote from the famous Government document—it has probably been consigned to most shelves—entitled "Scotland in the Union. A Partnership for Good." Chapter 5, under the heading, "Scotland in Europe," contained the following conclusion in paragraph 5.9, on page 22:
The European Community is involved in almost every aspect of Scottish life. It is vital that Scotland's voice should he heard in Europe and under the existing arrangements Scotland is strongly represented in Brussels. The Government have taken steps to complement and add to that strong representation to ensure that there is a multi-pronged approach for promoting Scotland's interests in Europe.
The Government may have done that and tried to get some representation on the Committee of the Regions, but what steps have they taken to add to Scotland's representation in the European Parliament? That paragraph concluded:
As Europe continues to develop, the Government will keep under review Scotland's profile in Europe to ensure that it matches Scotland's needs.
One can only ask what kind of view the Secretary of State has of Scotland's needs.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman and Labour Members to criticise the Government for the fact that no member of the Scottish Office is on the Front Bench, when no representative of the Opposition Scottish Office team is present?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was listening to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and he seemed to be making an adequate speech.

Mr. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My speech is founded on a good Scottish base.
"Scotland in the Union—A Partnership for Good" is a recent publication from the Scottish Office and refers to the need to promote Scotland's profile. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for Monklands, West has just re-entered the Chamber and perhaps I should explain to him why he has been greeted with cheers of support. Apart from being a recognition of the hon. Gentleman's natural demeanour and good humour, those cheers are in response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who, just a moment ago, raised a point of order about what had happened to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will now be able to sit at ease, perhaps until the call of nature—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is now beginning to wander a little. Perhaps he could get back to the amendment.

Mr. Wallace: I will wander no more. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will not wander for a while either.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The last time I recall getting a cheer like that was when the House debated a firm called Silent Night and reference was made to a millionaire, Mr. Tom Clarke, with whom I have no links.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will be aware that much is set to happen tomorrow about local government and he will appreciate that, like himself, I have to reply to a long list of telephone calls from people who have told me what the Government will not tell hon. Members.

Mr. Wallace: In case there is any misunderstanding, I will not say anything further except to assure the hon. Member for Monklands, West that I had made no criticism of his absence. I fully understand the problems that he faces.

Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, in the next few years, the European Parliament and its Scottish representatives and other Members will play an increasingly important role in the development of the regional management of the fisheries? Does he agree that the growing hostility among many Norwegian fishing communities towards membership of the European Community is precisely due to the failure of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to initiate and establish a fair and reasonable common fisheries policy?

Mr. Wallace: I will answer that question with care, so that I do not get distracted into a debate on the common fisheries policy. We should have time in the House, however, to debate it at some length.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is right that fisheries is an important industry for Scotland. It has undoubtedly been subject to considerable upheaval recently. I sometimes fear that the cause of that can be laid at the doors of the Westminster Government rather than at those of the European institutions. As any fisherman will tell hon. Members, many of the edicts and regulations from the Commission or the Council of Ministers have a direct bearing on the future of the industry.
I understand the concerns expressed by the Norwegians. The common fisheries policy is an obvious issue which a Scottish MEP or, for that matter, a representative from Cornwall, Devon, Wales or from the south coast of England—the hon. Member for Lewes has strong fishing interests represented at Newhaven and I am sure that his fishermen are interested in that policy—could raise in the European Parliament.
Fisheries is an important issue in the European Parliament and, given the proportional importance of that industry to Scotland, it is another good argument in favour of increasing Scotland's representation at that Parliament. In that way, Scotland's views could be heard. That does not mean that that need detract, however, from the work currently done by Scottish MEPs on behalf of our fishing interests.
We should consider some of the population and electorate figures, because they are part of the argument against giving Scotland an additional seat at the European Parliament. I have managed to get some statistical information, for which I thank the Library. At present, England has an electorate of 36,411,280 and has 66 MEPs; Wales has an electorate of 2,222,624 and has four MEPs; Scotland has an electorate of 3,931,429 and has eight MEPs; and Northern Ireland, which elects Members by proportional representation, has an electorate of 1,141,466 with three MEPs.
5 pm
The average electorate in England is 551,686; in Wales, 555,656; in Scotland, 491,429; and in Northern Ireland 380,489. To shorten my speech, I shall take it as read that no one disputes that Northern Ireland should have an additional MEP—although, if a Northern Ireland Member were to arrive and engage in this debate, his contribution would be most welcome.
I shall simply consider the position of England, Wales and Scotland. It is proposed that England should have an additional five MEPs and Wales an additional one MEP. England's average electorate is 512,835; Wales's average electorate is 444,525; and Scotland's average electorate is 491,429—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has a piece of paper that gives different figures, but he will see that it says that option No. 1 is "England plus six". I have done my own arithmetical calculation for England plus five and Wales plus one. I hope that my arithmetic is correct, but I shall stand corrected by any other hon. Member who can correct me during my speech—I have some time to go yet.
I welcome the fact that Wales will get an additional seat, but if the amendment were accepted it would create a more even distribution of seats, giving England an additional four rather than five, Wales an additional one, and Scotland an additional one. If I get the calculation wrong, it is no fault of the Library, as these are my calculations. England would have an average electorate of 520,161; Wales would have an average electorate of 444,525; and Scotland would have 436,825. That brings Scotland and Wales in line with each other, with a difference of less than 8,000. With such vast electorates, that is very little, so I hope that the argument for putting Scotland and Wales on a comparable basis will weigh with the Minister.
When considering population, even on that basis, it is important to examine what happens in some other European countries. We would then find that Scotland and Wales are disproportionately under-represented. The Library's research paper No. 93/70 gives the population per MEP. One assumes, therefore, that the electorate per MEP is less because the population includes people who are not electors because they are either too young, insane, Members of the House of Lords or in gaol—or all four. They could not be all four, because Members of the House of Lords could not be too young to vote, but they could be a combination of three of the four.
After the new MEPs have been added, Belgium will have a population of 400,000 per MEP, which would still be less than Scotland, even if Scotland were allocated another seat. Denmark would have 318,750 people per MEP, which would be considerably less than the average in Scotland. I could continue to quote such figures, but one could not argue that, on a population basis, Scotland would be over-represented by having an additional MEP.

Mrs. Ewing: This matter is of paramount importance. Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that Luxembourg, for instance, which has roughly the same population as Edinburgh, has six MEPs and an average electorate of only some 66,000? That amplifies the argument that the hon. Gentleman is so ably making.

Mr. Wallace: I was going to stop quoting such figures, but the hon. Lady has given me the encouragement to continue. For instance, Ireland has a population of 240,000 per MEP; Greece has 400,000; and Portugal has 408,000. Again, they would all have less than Scotland even if Scotland had an extra seat. Further examples include the Netherlands, with 474,194 per MEP. As those figures refer to population, as opposed to electorate, they tend to understate my case. So the Government cannot come to the House and argue that, on the ground of population, Scotland is over-represented, when it is clear that, compared to other EC countries, that is far from the case.
The question of geography—the land mass covered—is also important. The area of England is 13,043,865 hectares; Wales is 2,076,833 hectares; Scotland is 7,879,340 hectares; and Northern Ireland is 1.412,182 hectares. I do not wish to eleborate on the case of Northern Ireland, as I do not wish to take issue with hon. Members representing Northern Ireland who may join the debate later. The average size of electorate in England is 197,634 hectares; in Wales it is 519,208 hectares; and in Scotland it is a staggering 984,918 hectares.
I can go through that in much more detail, although I must unfortunately switch to square miles unless another hon. Member can translate square miles into hectares. The North East Scotland constituency covers an area of 4,873 square miles; Mid-Scotland and Fife covers 2,140 square miles; Lothian covers 407 square miles: Strathclyde East covers 500 square miles; Strathclyde West covers 794 square miles; Glasgow a meagre 74 square miles; South of Scotland covers 5,979 square miles; and the Highlands and Islands covers 15,661 square miles.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman's statistics are baffling me. In his otherwise fine speech, he has made little or no mention of the role and functions of MEPs. As the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said, if the Maastricht treaty is ratified, the MEP will perforce come


into greater contact with his or her constituents in terms of complaints that are taken to the European Parliament's ombudsman. A case can therefore be made for manageably sized constituencies because of the greater role put on MEPs by Maastricht. Amid the plethora of statistics that the hon. Gentleman has given, he has not mentioned MEPs' enhanced roles.

Mr. Wallace: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I overlooked that matter. I referred to the importance of the European Parliament and, by definition, the importance of the MEP's role, though I am happy to elaborate on that.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point in regard to the increasing workload that will fall on MEPs. European legislation and the arms of the European Community are stretching into ever more aspects of our lives, and hon. Members need no reminding of the number of inquiries that we now receive relating to European issues. Populations have a great bearing on that. The greater the electorate, the greater the potential burden on the parliamentary representative, be it in relation to the European ombudsman or other issues.

Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that—because of the massive European constituencies—if Maastricht is ratified and there are many complaints about maladministration and so on, we may have to act as referral agents for local MEPs?

Mr. Wallace: That is possible, and to some extent it already happens. I am happy to say that I have formed a good working relationship with the MEP who covers my constituency, and we have a mutual referral system. She often receives details and refers them to me or the local authority, and I receive details of European issues which I refer to her. I anticipate that happening increasingly. The burden will remain, even with a smaller electorate, although a smaller electorate might make matters more manageable.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while the enhanced facilities that now exist for communicating between the House of Commons and the European Parliament and between both of those and the Council and the Commission—directly by telephone and by faxing—make a great difference, there will have to be additional liaison between MEPs and MPs because of the increased interest that people have in the affairs of the European Parliament?
At least two major Scottish newspapers now have permanent representation in Brussels. The media generally are taking a greater interest in affairs there. That is heightening the awareness of people in European matters. The citizens of the United Kingdom are becoming alerted to the importance of the European legislative processes.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. lady makes a pertinent point. the fact that national newspapers are covering events in the European Parliament with greater thoroughness must make people more aware of what is happening there. That will undoubtedly result in people making greater demands on their MEPs and perhaps on their Westminster MPs. Indeed, hon. Members throughout the Committee will have noticed over the years an increasing volume of correspondence attributed to European matters. Those matters have involved, for example, motor bikes, driving licence conditions for Community coaches and the common fisheries policy.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow referred to populations. That in turn concerns the sizes of constituencies. After all, the bigger the constituency, the more chance there is of MEPs having to cover a wider diversity of interests, to the point where virtually every subject could arise.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes to refer to the South of Scotland, which is an extremely large seat. I note that several hon. Members who represent that area are in the Committee today, including the hon. Member for East Lothian. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) was in his place and will no doubt be back, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). They represent divers parts of Scotland, but all within the same South of Scotland seat. I fought that constituency in 1979, unfortunately unsuccessfully.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Shame.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that word of sympathy, although, as the constituency was then known as Berwick and East Lothian, I do not think that he was so sympathetic at the time.

Mr. Home Robertson: I must admit that I did not vote for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wallace: That comes as no surprise.
During that, albeit brief, campaign, I learned a great deal about what goes on. I got my nomination papers in with about three minutes to spare, so late in the day had I been selected. I saved considerable public expense because the returning officer had already had the ballot papers printed and was biting his nails wondering whether I would make it in time.
I learned during that experience of the great diversity within that Euro-constituency, including the sheer difficulty of covering the whole area. During an election campaign, one is trying to cover a wide area in a short period compared with the time available when the European Parliament is sitting normally. I was fortunate to have a home base in Dumfriesshire, so, from the constituency point of view, it was useful to be 90 miles one way to Coldstream and 90 miles the other way to Stranraer, and one could travel easily to places such as Haddington or Killington in Ayr. That experience brought home to me. just what a vast area was being covered.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Did the hon. Gentleman get to Prestonpans?

Mr. Wallace: I passed through Prestonpans, but I do not think there were many Liberal votes to be won there, so I would not have spent a great deal of time there. I remember a meeting at which I was to talk to fishermen in Eyemouth, but I am afraid nobody turned up. I met some of them in a local hostelry and had a good discussion about the common fisheries policy.
One of the biggest meetings that I attended during that campaign centred on the issue of nuclear waste dumping, though perhaps that had what might be called more of a general academic interest to people living in, say, Carluke. I had almost forgotten that Carluke was in the then European patch that I was contesting—until about a year later, when a student I was tutoring in conveyancing law


at Edinburgh university said, "You must be the guy I voted for in the European elections." I had forgotten that I had sought election in his home area.
I have made those points to illustrate how vast constituencies are. Not only are they difficult to manage, but they can give rise to many issues. If the Government are as insistent on the first-past-the-post system as they appear to be, we are in difficulty, because some of the constituencies are so large that it can be difficult to identify a community of interests.
That would apply even more to the new boundaries, with 71 rather than the present 66 seats. The average size in England would be 512,835 hectares, and Wales and Scotland would be the figures I have given—[Interruption.] I apologise to the Committee. I have referred to electorates rather than to areas. I must give the correct figures. We propose something different, but I fear that I cannot immediately find the figures. Suffice it to say that our proposal would be more manageable than the scheme before us.
There is a strong political case for Scotland being given an extra seat. I am not putting a nationalistic argument. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his famous St. Andrews speech:
I have talked already of Scots being one of the people of Europe, as much part of the rich tapestry of the Community as Bavarians, Walloons or Catalonians.
That must be appreciated, as the hon. Member for Lewes has strongly argued.

Mr. Rathbone: Hon. Members will recall that I doubted the validity of the numerical base for such arguments as the hon. Gentleman is pursuing. Even greater doubt is cast on that numerical base if the single additional Scottish Member were elected for the whole of Scotland, whatever basis of voting might be suggested. It would mean the establishment of a constituency embracing all of Scotland. Any points that the hon. Gentleman is now making about the difficulties of getting around any part of Scotland would be that much greater. Will he explain how those two points are happily married?

Mr. Wallace: With pleasure. As the hon. Gentleman will be quick to appreciate, we are not comparing like with like, because I have been basing my argument, as we must, on the first-past-the-post system which the Government have proposed.
Much play is made of the Member of the European Parliament's identity with the community that he represents. In a seat such as the south of Scotland, there is huge diversity of communities. They undoubtedly have things in common—they celebrate St. Andrew's day on 30 November, and the nights around Burns night on 25 January and they have a good time. We all cheer for the same side at Murrayfield and Hampden park.
There are also other common factors that are much more important and deeply ingrained in the Scottish culture. A Member of the European Parliament deals with a multiplicity of interests. If we were to allocate one seat to Scotland using a proportional system, we would be elevating another principle—fair representation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes would warm to that proposal, not least because it would achieve some representation for his party in Scotland.
There is a community of identity in Scotland. But clearly, if one were to have the best of all worlds, we would do away with the first-past-the-post system and have a proper system of fair representation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased to hear the encouraging support from Labour Members. I shall not go into too much detail on that issue now, but I hope that we will debate it on another occasion.
I quoted earlier from the famous St. Andrews speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which I suspect has been over-quoted, as it did not amount to much.

Mr. Tom Clarke: It is overrated.

Mr. Wallace: That is a better way to describe it, particularly as it promised so much and has failed to deliver.
In that speech, the Secretary of State advanced one or two good arguments—on which the hon. Member for Lewes elaborated—on the political value of having an extra seat for Scotland. I hope that I have made it clear that the European Parliament has an increasingly important role which means that there is an additional work load for Members of the European Parliament.
If there is an opportunity to reduce that work load through a much better distribution of seats in Scotland to deal with issues that are peculiarly Scottish and have a specific and Scottish dimension, it should be taken. In comparison with other European Community countries, Scotland is not over-represented.
Vast areas will need to be covered. An additional Scottish seat elected under the first-past-the-post system would allow some steps to be taken towards achieving a manageable work load. It would be no means eliminate some of the greater travel distances, but nevertheless it would help to achieve that aim. For those compelling reasons, I cannot understand how the Minister can say that he is not going to give Scotland another seat. The speeches of hon. Members representing the Scottish National party, the Labour party, the Conservative party, and the Liberal Democrats show that there is great cross-party consensus which should be welcomed and encouraged. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the arguments I have advanced.

Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has made a speech of stunning length–40 to 50 minutes, which seemed like only four or five hours. He held the House captivated throughout his speech. If he ever feels like publishing it, I am sure that it would sell well in the travelogue section of any of the bookshops in Scotland. One of the details which the hon. Gentleman failed to mention and of which I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), was that the shoreline of Argyll is longer than the shoreline of France. The hon. Gentleman should have remembered and mentioned that when making such a detailed speech.
I have no intention of referring to the speech allegedly made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on St. Andrew's day. Like 99·999 per cent. of the Scottish people, I was totally unaware that the Secretary of State for Scotland had made a speech on St. Andrew's day. Now that I am aware of it, I have no intention of reading the speech.

Mr. Wallace: The speech was made in St. Andrews on 23 November, not on St. Andrew's day.

Mr. McAllion: That explains the matter. I was perplexed when I heard that the Secretary of State had made a St. Andrew's day speech on 23 November, as I had always believed that St. Andrew's day was on 30 November. I thought that perhaps I was wrong. 11 shall not refer to the speech because, if I remember rightly, the Secretary of State for Scotland is the same man who claimed that the Conservative party had won the general election in Scotland on the basis that it received one in four of the votes cast in 11 out of the 72 seats that were at stake. The speeches of anyone who is as out of touch with reality as the Secretary of State should not be listened to or accorded respect.
I am pleased with the group of amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends and hon. Members from other political parties in Scotland. As a founder member and stalwart supporter of Scotland United I was delighted to see the cross-party co-operation that led to the parliamentary leaders of the Labour party, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats putting their names to the same amendments and being so nice to each other during the debate. It gladdened my old heart to see such cross-party co-operation and restored my faith in the fact that, even at this late hour, Scotland may yet rescue something from the debris of previous general elections, eventually get their act together and perhaps force the Tories into retreat. I certainly hope so.
Earlier in the debate, the complete lack of participation from anyone from the Conservative party in Scotland was noticeable. Not only Scottish Office Ministers, but Back Benchers, have yet to attempt to catch your eye. Mr. Morris, to try to participate in the debate and explain why they are opposed to Scotland's being given an additional seat and additional representation in the European Parliament. We had to rely on an hon. Member from the other extremity of the United Kingdom—as he described it—to argue the case for Scotland to be given additional representation.
What struck me about the hon. Gentleman's argument was that he said that he believed that everyone in the Chamber would be in favour of the proper operation of parliamentary democracy, but that it was important, within that process, for the voice of the political minority to be heard. I found that argument strange coming from a representative of the Conservative party as that party is the political minority in Scotland. Not only is the Conservative party given a voice in the proper operation of Scottish democracy: it dominates Scottish democracy. It runs every aspect of Scotland on the basis of only a handful of votes cast in its favour and a handful of seats.
The latest opinion poll in Scotland gives the Conservative party 16 per cent. support among Scottish people—[Laughter.] However, it is still able to make key decisions about how Scotland will be represented elsewhere. I see that Conservative Members laugh at my reference to the fact that the Conservative party has only 16 per cent. support in Scotland. A spokesperson for the Conservative party went on record as saying that he was delighted that his party had attained 16 per cent. of the opinion poll ratings in Scotland because it represented a marked improvement.
I was interested in some aspects of the argument of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). She left the

Chamber as soon as I got to my feet—the Scottish National party must now be opposed to cross-party co-operation, as it skedaddles as soon as a Labour Member rises from his seat. The hon. Lady advanced the argument about the British state. It is important, particularly for Conservative Members, to understand what we mean when we talk of the British state and say that the British state is not a country or a nation.
As the hon. Lady correctly said, the British state is a multinational state. It consists not of one nation or one country, but three different nations and three different countries—Scotland, Wales and England. I clearly remember at the last Labour party conference in Scotland when we debated whether Labour should stand and organise in Northern Ireland. The biggest cheer of the day was reserved for one of the delegates who took the platform and, in a short speech, simply said that he did not think that the British state should be in Northern Ireland, never mind the Labour party. He received a tremendous reception.
I do not think that the British state should be in England, never mind in Northern Ireland. I do not think that the British state should be in Scotland, Wales, or, indeed, Northern Ireland. We need a new, democratic deal to bind together the different nations that make up the United Kingdom, not the present system which is supported by the Conservative party and by no other political party in this country which supports the status quo.
I could not agree with the hon. Lady when she tried to answer that, because we are part of a multinational state, Scotland should be treated as an equal partner with England and be given—as she put it—full and equal representation with England at the European Parliament. As I understand it, England currently has 71 Members of the European Parliament. If the amendments are defeated, it will have 76 Members of the European Parliament. If the hon. Lady is to be taken at her word, she is arguing for Scotland to have 76 Members of the European Parliament, which seems slightly absurd as we only have 72 Members in the United Kingdom Parliament. The Scottish National party seems to be arguing that we should have 76 Members at European level.
If anyone read The Scotsman this morning—I am sure that you, Mr. Morris, read it every morning of your life —he would have seen an article which was critical of Euro Members of Parliament. It attacked them for living off their expenses and consultancies, and the rich pickings that they can make during the five years of their tenancy in the European Parliament. I did not necessarily agree with the article, but it expressed a view that is held by some people.
The author is a member of the Conservative party. Indeed, he was a candidate in recent general elections. Naturally, like the majority of Conservative candidates in Scotland, he was defeated. I refer to Mr. Peter Clarke, who writes for The Scotsman. If the views that he expressed were in any way correct—if it were true that Scotland should have not eight but 76 Euro-Members of Parliament living off the fat pickings in Europe—it would be a rather strange world. It is surprising that the hon. Lady should advance such an argument.
5.30 pm
It was surprising also to hear the hon. Lady argue that the answer is for Scotland to have independence, that only with independence shall we be able to determine for


ourselves what our representation in the European Parliament should be. The hon. Lady went on to say that she is a great supporter of further integration at the European level. I have always understood that further integration at the European level would require member states to surrender sovereignty. Thus, the hon. Lady says that she believes in independence for Scotland, but that she believes also in giving up Scotland's independence, in ceding sovereignty to the European Parliament.
It seems to me that those are contradictory positions, which cannot be used with any kind of logic. I am always struck by the difference between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. We argue for a Scottish parliament within the United Kingdom, while the Scottish nationalists argue for a Scottish parliament within the union of a European superstate.
I should like now to turn to points that have been made in connection with the amendments. If the amendments are defeated, Scotland will have eight European parliamentary seats out of a total of 93 for the United Kingdom. That is about 6 per cent.

Mr. Wallace: Eighty-seven.

Mr. McAllion: I understand that the current number is 87, which will be increased to 93.

Mr. Wallace: The current number is 81.

Mr. McAllion: So it is to go up to 87.
In any case, 6 to 7 per cent. of the seats in the European Parliament will be Scottish. In the case of Westminster, we have 72 seats out of 630–11 per cent. It seems to me, therefore, that there is a contradiction in the Government's argument. They say that it is only fair that Scotland should settle for 6 or 7 per cent. representation at the European level. They argue that we must be fair to England, Wales and Scotland. But if it is fair for Scotland to have representation of only 6 or 7 per cent. at the European level, surely it is fair that it should have only 6 or 7 per cent. representation at the United Kingdom level.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Do not encourage them.

Mr. McAllion: They are being illogical, and the flaws in their argument must be pointed out.
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it is fair for Scotland to have 6 to 7 per cent. representation in Europe—only about half its 11 or 12 per cent. representation in the United Kingdom. The application of consistency and logic would result in a reduction in the number of Scottish seats in this place to about 39. This is not my idea; it is the logic of the Government. They are pretending to be fair and logical in their treatment of Scotland. Of course, there is no fairness or logic. If the Government were to pursue their argument to its logical conclusion, they would have severe problems in Scotland.
Reference has been made to the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—A Partnership for Good". In the foreword, written by the Prime Minister, there is a reference to the Government's deep commitment to the unity of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that no nation could be held irrevocably, against its will, in any kind of union. He conceded that there was growing anxiety in Scotland about the union and whether it was in Scotland's best interests. He promised that he would

search for new ways of strengthening the union—in particular, Scotland's place in it—so that Scotland might flourish for a fourth century.
The Minister may believe that that is just so much guff strictly for the natives up in Scotland, that the Prime Minister makes such remarks only when he is there. When he comes down to England it is a very different argument —the argument that was advanced during the Second Reading debate: that Scotland's place in the union is no different from that of Essex, Yorkshire or Lancashire, that the governing principle must always be fairness as between individual constituencies and the size of electorates.
If that is what the Government actually believe, they should apply the argument not only in respect of the European Parliament but in respect of the United Kingdom. That would result in their ignoring Scotland's so-called special place in the union. We are to be denied an additional seat in Europe. Consistency would result in our representation in this House being cut.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I had an opportunity on Sunday afternoon to meet some of my hon. Friend's constituents at Timex. The regard of one of them—a woman—for my hon. Friend was exceeded only by my own. Those people made the point that, time after time, the Government miss opportunities in Europe—including the opportunity of the social chapter—very much at their own expense.

Mr. McAllion: That is an excellent point. Not long ago, I was accused in the Chamber by the Minister for Public Transport, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), of supporting job wreckers at Timex. The hon. Gentleman was referring, of course, to the Timex workers who had been sacked and locked out by management, whereas the real job wrecker there is the multinational company itself. The Government consistently get it wrong by backing multinationals, as well as others who are rich and powerful, against their own people. There is no better example of this than the way in which they have set their face against the social chapter, which would give the workers of this country the protection that is available to workers everywhere else in the European Community.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is muttering into his shirt. I shall not ask him what he said, as I understand that he has been promoted to the post of Parliamentary Private Secretary and is therefore not allowed to take part in debates. That being the case, he should not mutter either. He should just sit there quietly and accept what Opposition Members say.
There is no possibility that the Government will apply to the European Parliament the logic that they apply to the United Kingdom Parliament. If they were to do so, they would be faced with the break-up of the United Kingdom and of this Parliament, as they know very well. While North sea oil is important to them, there will be no possibility of their risking Scotland's breaking away and deciding for itself that the union no longer has anything to offer to its people.
The Government continue to be two-faced and inconsistent. They play the national card in England when it suits them to do so. For example, during this debate they say that they are fighting for fairness for England. When they are up in Scotland, of course, there is no such place as England, and Scotland has a special place in the United


Kingdom. What they say is totally inconsistent, totally two-faced and totally unbelievable. No one in Scotland, except diehard Tories, believes them any longer.
Ultimately, Scotland's representation in Europe should be a matter for the Scottish people themselves. The hon. Member for Moray argued that, with an independent Scotland, that would be the case. The trouble with her argument is that Scotland has not yet voted for independence.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman note the fact that at 5.37 pm, almost two hours after the beginning of the debate, a Scottish Office Minister now graces the Committee with his presence?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. No doubt, when the Minister saw my name appear on the screen, he hurried to the Chamber.
It is for the Scottish people to decide how they should be represented at the European level. With an independent Scotland, that would be the case. But we have not yet voted for independence and no major Scottish political party supports that policy. I include the Scottish National party, which is willing to give up Scotland's independence and to cede its sovereignty to the European Parliament in a way that would be much more damaging to Scottish interests than in the sovereignty of this Parliament. The SNP, for example, supports an independent central bank beyond any kind of political control.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We are dealing with a relatively narrow point, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to it.

Mr. McAllion: I am trying very hard to do precisely that, Dame Janet.
How do the Scottish people express their views on what their representation should be in Europe? They choose not to do so through the SNP. Indeed, that would be a waste of time because the SNP holds out only an unrealistic promise. Nor do they choose to do so by voting for incorporation in a unitary Parliament, as the Tories want them to do and even pretend that they have done. The Scottish people did not vote for this Parliament to decide how they should be represented at the European level; they voted for something quite different.
The democratic authority for the Bill comes from the Tory vision of an incorporating union between Scotland and England. The Tories believe that this is a unitary Parliament in which the majority is all powerful. Their attachment to the reactionary principle that sovereignty rests not with the people but with whichever party happens to have a majority in the House is the vision that they pray in aid when they argue that they have the right to decide for Scotland how it will be represented in Europe.
That vision has been overwhelmingly rejected by the Scottish people. Three out of four of those who voted in the last general election voted against that sort of incorporating union, unitary Parliament and the Tories having the right to tell us what our representation in Europe should be. Indeed, 61 of the 72 Members who represent Scotland in this Parliament oppose that sort of incorporating union and unitary Parliament. That goes to the heart of the argument between the two sides tonight.
We do not believe that the Government have a democratic right to decide Scotland's representation in Europe—or any of the other issues that affect the Scottish

people. The Scottish people have that right, which is why all the opposition parties signed the claim of right for Scotland—

Mr. Tom Clarke: I hesitate to become involved in this argument, but when we have a Labour Government and the majority of Members of Parliament in England happen to be Conservative, will the same logic apply and the Labour Government not have the right to govern England?

Mr. McAllion: If English people decide to vote overwhelmingly for parties that want to break up the United Kingdom, that is a matter for them. The sovereign right of nations applies to all nations across the globe, not just to this or that nation. If Scotland has a national right to self-determination, so has England. That is what the argument is about. We are discussing who decides the representation of different nations at the European Parliament. We are challenging the idea that that decision should be taken only by the majority party in the House, which does not even reflect the majority of the English people, let alone the majority of the British people.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be that we should not legislate on anything, at any time. We must deal with matters as they are.

Mr. McAllion: If the House decided to stop interfering in the affairs of the British people, that would be one of the most progressive decisions that it had made and the British people—especially in Scotland—would be the first to give three cheers and to say, "Thank God for that."
Scotland wants a new democratic deal. It wants a directly elected Scottish Parliament, sovereign in its own areas, which can negotiate with the Westminster Parliament, if that suits Scotland, on a particular area, or with the European Parliament, if that suits Scotland, on other areas. That Scottish Parliament would negotiate the division of competencies and powers between the Scottish, Westminster and European Parliaments. That is what Scotland voted for and that is what Scotland should be getting.
A Scottish Parliament should have been established in the aftermath of the general election, able to negotiate either directly with Europe or, if it thought it better, with Westminster about what the joint representation of Scotland and the rest of Britain should be. Before the House decides Scotland's representation in Europe, the consent of the Scottish people should be sought.
All too often, the House decides for Scotland and discounts what Scotland thinks. The Tory Government believe that there should be five additional seats for England and one for Wales—and Scotland can jump into the North sea if it so chooses. That is the Government's view, but they have no right to impose it on the people of Scotland.
One point that has not yet been mentioned is that the Bill is the consequence of an agreement reached at the European Council, which was held in Scotland's capital city last year. However, there was no direct representation for Scotland in the European Council when it discussed additional representation for the countries within the European Community.
In fact, we were represented by the Prime Minister, who is now so unpopular in Scotland that he is even less


popular than his predecessor. To be less popular than Baroness Thatcher is some achievement, which I doubt will ever be paralleled. The feelings of the Scottish people were probably better represented outside that European Council meeting when 25,000 people demonstrated in support of a Scottish Parliament.
5.45 pm
The Scottish people are becoming seriously disillusioned with the Tory Government's views on how Scotland should he represented in the European Community. The Government argue that we are represented because the Secretary of State for Scotland happens to be a member of the Tory Cabinet. As has been said before, the right hon. Gentleman represents the Cabinet in Scotland; he does not represent Scotland in the Cabinet. That is a tragedy.
They say that we are represented because the Tory-controlled Scottish Office participates in the United Kingdom governmental machine that influences the United Kingdom's permanent representatives in Europe. They argue that we are represented because that same Tory-controlled Scottish Office participates through the Council of Ministers and agencies such as Scotland Europa and Scottish Trade International, which are essentially Government agencies under the control of Tory Ministers.
That indirect representation through the Tory Government, who are so unpopular in Scotland, is an affront to democracy and all Opposition Members recognise that. I suspect that Tory Members who are honest with themselves also recognise that. They know they have no democratic right to make decisions tonight about what should happen north of the border.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said that there is no substitute for democracy. Tragically, in Scotland this Parliament is a substitute for democracy. The way that Parliament is governed is an affront to democracy. If the Tories do not understand that, their current poll rating in Scotland of 16 per cent. will plummet even further, and deservedly so.

Dr. Godman: It is curious that we, in this multinational Parliament, are debating the extent of the representation within another multinational Parliament —

Mr. Wallace: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) has departed? Again, there is no Scottish Office Minister on the Bench.

Dr. Godman: The Minister came in so quietly that I did not spot his presence; I certainly did not spot his departure.
The legislative sovereignty of this Parliament has been severely restricted by the central institutions of the European Community, whereas over the next decade the power of the European Parliament must grow. It cannot be otherwise, because it cannot remain in its present condition. The Bill owes its very existence to the reunification of the two Germanies, which in itself was a most welcome European development? It has important repercussions for the European Parliament.
I agreed wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that we are members of a

multinational parliament. There are those who believe that, with European union, if Maastricht is ratified, Europe will develop—albeit slowly—into a multinational federal state. I parted company with the hon. Lady, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), when she argued the case for an independent Scotland within the European Community.
Given the treaty of Rome, the role of the European Commission, that of the European Council and, perhaps most important, that of the European Court of Justice, there are no independent member states of the European Community. It makes better sense, in my view, to talk about autonomous member states forming, in relation to the Maastricht treaty, a European union.
I believe that we all now accept, readily or grudgingly, the increasingly important role of the European Parliament and the Members of that Parliament. That greater power of the European Parliament must be matched—if that is the right way to put it—by the increasing diminution of this Parliament in terms of the power of the European Community's central institutions.
All 12 national legislatures are now subordinate to the European Court of Justice; it is in evey sense a supreme court. As Judge Christopher Bellamy of the Court of First Instance said in his De Lancy lecture last year, those of us who are aware of it are witnessing a quiet legal and constitutional revolution in terms of the power of these institutions. That includes the European Parliament.
In his lecture, Judge Ballamy claimed that, if we accept
that the principle of the supremacy of Community law applies not only when the Act of Parliament in question is inconsistent with the Treaty, but also when it is inconsistent with subsidiary Community legislation, that is to say regulations and directives, then matters have moved very far indeed. Because in that event the will of the once sovereign legislature has become subordinate to another legislative act, which is itself derivative, passed by another legislature, the EEC Council of Ministers. On this view Parliament"—
he is referring her to the United Kingdom Parliament—
has become subordinate not just to a constitutional instrument—the Treaty—but also to subsequent legislation based on the Treaty made by a rival legislature.
He is talking about the European Council of Ministers, but in time to come that statement would fit the role played by the European Parliament.
If we look at the powers of that Parliament and the role of the MEPs, we see that, in accordance with the Maastricht treaty, all Community citizens have the right to petition the European Parliament by way of their local MEP—that is article 18—and all citizens have a right to complain to the European ombudsman in respect of the actions of Community institutions. They cannot do this by taking a complaint to a Member of Parliament; they have to take the complaint to a Member of the European Parliament.
So, in terms of representing the interests of these huge constituencies, certainly where Scotland is concerned, MEPs will perforce, I believe, become much more involved, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) suggested, in a very wide range of issues. He said, rightly, that we are already referral agencies where some matters are concerned in terms of taking complaints to MEPs. This, I believe, will increase in the light of Maastricht.

Mr. Brian Donohoe: Will my hon. Friend tell us how it is possible to consider an MEP in Scotland to be a local MEP, when two of them represent both the east and the west coasts of Scotland?

Dr. Godman: I am glad that my hon. Friend was listening so intently. I apologise for that slip of the tongue. I guess it is a contradiction in terms to talk about Alex Smith, the very fine MEP for South of Scotland, being a local MEP, given that his constituency, as was pointed out earlier, stretches from coast to coast. He represents for example, both east coast and west coast fishermen.
We have to remember that these MEPs are taking part in a European Parliament which increasingly has a powerful role to play—the kind of role that this Parliament cannot play. In terms of the decision making of that unelected body, the European Commission, and of the Council of Ministers, these few MEPs have a more direct, more interventionist role to play with regard to the proposals emerging from the European Commission. Even now, they can block some proposals. For example, they can stop the accession of a country seeking to join the European Community.
In terms of the European Parliament, MEPs become, vis-a-vis the Maastricht treaty, in every sense co-decision-makers with the Council of Ministers. We have never had that power. According to article 189b, if the European Parliament is so minded, it can reject a Commission proposal. We in national Parliaments cannot do that. Even at this moment, the various Committees in the European Parliament can shape to a considerable degree proposals by the 17 Commissioners to the Council of Ministers.
So it is not an empty claim that the European Parliament now has powers that we do not have, but which it is often reluctant to use. I believe that I am right in saying that it can dismiss the President of the European Commission. We do not have that power. So we are talking about placing representatives on this increasingly powerful body.
Under article 189b, the European Parliament can stop a Council regulation. As Judge Bellamy said in his lecture:
We will therefore have a joint legislature, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament.
He is referring, of course, to the European Parliament.
In recognition of that fact Community regulations will be
signed by the Presidents of both bodies.
We are literally standing on the touchline in this regard, but all this centres upon the immensely powerful role of the European Court of Justice and the roles, certainly nowhere near as powerful, of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. In a very real sense, we are determining the extent of representation in another multi-national Parliament, which is growing in stature and power, while our legislative power is increasingly constrained by the actions and deliberations of central institutions.
6 pm
Some parliamentarians in other member states are even arguing that the members of the European Court of Justice should be appointed by the European Parliament rather by national Governments on the recommendation of law officers, as is currently the case. I do not want the European Parliament to be given that kind of power, but those discussions are taking place, and in the amendments we are arguing for more representation in Scotland.
We need that extra seat in the European Parliament. I consider it essential that Scotland should be well represented by the very finest people.

Mr. Marlow: Surrounded as I am by hon. Members concerned with Scotland, I hope that it will be all right for me to stand up and say a few words on behalf of England. Is that in order with the rest of the House?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is a question of whether it is in order with the Chair. Provided it is relevant, the answer is yes.

Mr. Marlow: I will try my hardest—and I may well succeed—to make it both in order and relevant.
What does the European Parliament do? What is it for? I do not think that anyone is greatly impressed by the European Parliament at the moment, or particularly impressed by its Members. There are some very bright people, some of them with a great deal of ambition but not a lot of power. It would seem that their overriding objective at the moment is to increase the power of the institution of which they are members, rather than the good governance of Europe. So be it. If we have more members of that institution, we are concerned about how they should be allocated within this nation of ours, this state of ours, this United Kingdom. We are a united kingdom, and we are all equal within it.

Mr. McAllion: We are not a nation.

Mr. Marlow: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says that we are not a nation. I believe that we are a nation state, and the nation state is the United Kingdom.

Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marlow: In a minute.
I believe that we are a nation state—to which I give my loyalty—and that everybody within that nation state should have equal rights and equal representation. People and businesses in my constituency may wish to get in touch with their MEP, and may have reason to do so. I cannot really conceive why, if this institution has any value at all —and hopefully it does—my constituents should be less fully represented than someone from another part of the country. I cannot conceive why constituents in Cornwall should have a different level of representation from that of constituents in Scotland, London, or the north-west. Why should the regions of the United Kingdom be catered for less fully, just because they happen to be in a different part of the nation state from that part known as Scotland?

Mr. Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to erode the original premise of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 and subsequent amendments—that it need not be a pure mathematical formula that distributes seats around Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England?
The electorate of any Assembly constituency in Great Britain shall be as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practical having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations.
Does the hon. Gentleman concede that in Scotland, more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, special geographical considerations apply?

Mr. Marlow: I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about size and scale. That is a factor, but there are many


other factors, as I am sure he will agree. Increasingly, in this age of the communications revolution, a lot of work is done by telephone and fax; in the future, much will probably be done by videophone, and so on and so forth, and by meetings of that sort. Although I concede that the population is more sparsely distributed in some parts of the country than in others, I do not think that that in itself is a sufficient reason why people in those parts of the country—

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps I may help the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). The Act to which he referred does enumerate the normal boundary commission criteria, but that is in their respective parts of the United Kingdom. The Boundary Commission took cognisance of the geography of Scotland, which is why in the Highland and Islands constituency the large area is balanced by a much smaller population. That is done within the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and not across the United Kingdom as a whole. The legislation is quite clear about that.

Mr. Marlow: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but there are parts of Scotland where the population is very densely distributed, whereas there are parts of England where the population is not as densely distributed as it is in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman talked about geography and boundaries being consistent, to a certain extent, with identity. It makes sense where possible—where groups of people live within a county, or a high-density area, or a catchment area, or a London, or Edinburgh or Glasgow—that the boundaries should not go through the middle of Glasgow or Nottingham, but should be consistent with people's communities and identities.
If there is work to be done, the overriding principle of Members of the European Parliament should be that it is done for everybody—every business, every constituent and every interest—in the United Kingdom in equal measure. I see no reason why my constituents should not have the same opportunity of being represented by somebody in the European Parliament as any other constituent in the country, be they in Cornwall, Northumberland, Scotland, Cambridge or wherever.
The Government are quite right to allocate the seats in the way they seek. I think that in the past England has been unfairly treated, and that it is only right and proper that that unfairness should be addressed.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: How does the hon. Gentleman tie in what he is saying today with what he said on Second Reading? It is my recollection that his attitude to the enlargement of the European Parliament was, so far as this country is concerned, that it was totally unnecessary. If I recall his speech aright, he said it was simply a drain on the Exchequer and the taxpayer. If he is not terribly interested in enlargement, why not bow out of the debate and let those who do feel that it is important that we are represented have their way?

Mr. Marlow: It is an interesting point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not quoting me aright. I am sceptical about the European Parliament and the motives of its Members, but I am not saying that it does not have

a role and a purpose, or that it is a total waste of space. It may develop a constructive role which is helpful to the interests of my constituents and of the United Kingdom as a whole, although I am sceptical about that. I am not saying that we have reached that stage yet. It may happen.
The hon. Gentleman has his view, which is shared by some people in my constituency. I am likewise entitled to participate in the debate, particularly as many of the hon. Members who have already spoken have represented a small but vital part of the United Kingdom: Scotland. Someone should run up the flag for England and ensure that we follow the Government's lead in getting justice and a fair share for England. I am delighted that the Government are proceeding in such a way.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Perhaps what he fails to understand was betrayed by his opening remarks. He seems to regard the United Kingdom as one unitary state, without accepting that it is composed of the four distinctive elements of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. Recognising those separate identities within the United Kingdom, which I support, let us consider the fact that Luxembourg, with a population that might merit only about one Member of the European Parliament, has six. There has always been over-representation of peoples and nations within the European Community, and it is something that the United Kingdom should have tried to achieve.

Mr. Marlow: I accept that the United Kingdom, which I call a nation state, is made up of four different nations. They have their different identities and aspirations, but come together within the greater United Kingdom. I think most hon. Members are in favour of that, as it is a good thing. So I do not understand where the difference lies between the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and myself.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland goes on about Luxembourg. Since the inception of the Community, Luxembourg has been over-represented in the European Parliament. I am against overrepresentation and would like it to be reformed because it is wrong. It is nonsense. As far as possible, different parts of Europe should be equally represented in the European Parliament; different peoples, constituents, organisations and lobbies should have equal access. It is wrong that Luxembourg, which is smaller than Northamptonshire—which does not even have an MEP because it is not big enough—has six MEPs when its population is less than that of Northampton.
The main reason for my opposition to the Maastricht treaty is that the Commission has too much power and is seeking to get more. I want its power to be reduced. It is not properly democratically accountable, and because there is no such thing as party there and it is polyglot, and also because of different interests and shifting coalitions, I do not think that the European Parliament is likely to be an adequate institution to control the Commission in my lifetime.
The Commission uses its power by gaining the support of the smaller nations of Europe, which feel that it is on their side and that it will produce a federal Europe, which is what they want. They see their power coming from a federal Europe, whereas we see ours coming from the United Kingdom. The Germans see their power coming


largely from Germany and the French from France. The Belgians, to an extent the Dutch, and certainly Luxembourg, see their power coming through Europe.
Over-representation helps the Commission to get its own way. When there is a vote in the Council of Ministers, it is wrong that the small countries are over-represented, because that means that there is a bias in decision making in favour of the smaller countries. There is also a bias because some of the smaller countries happen to be the peripheral countries, such as Greece, Portugal, Ireland—the people who are in receipt of net moneys from the European Community.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Do I hear the cantering footsteps of a hobby-horse? May we please return to the amendment under consideration?

Mr. Marlow: I am not arguing at all, Dame Janet.
I am concerned about the regional allocation of Members of the European Parliament. If the recipients of European funds, the small nations of Europe and the allies of the Commission are over-represented, not just on the Council of Ministers but in the European Parliament, that enhances the power and prestige of the Commission and makes it easier for it to get its way. In my view, when the Commission gets its way, it is more often than not contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom and of my constituents, whom I seek to represent.

Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because I am following his arguments with interest. Given that during debates on the European issue the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has consistently agreed with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who said last week on Second Reading that it did not matter where the extra seats were allocated, why does the hon. Gentleman now take such a strong stance against the argument propounded by Opposition Members and supported by some Conservative Members that Scotland should have extra representation? Is it not because he is in principle against the idea of a European Parliament?

Mr. Marlow: I am not a great fan of the European Parliament, as the hon. Lady knows. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is a wise and effective politician and we have a great identity of view, but perhaps the hon. Lady will understand that we are not totally as one on Scottish issues.
I have two arguments. First, let us be fair to England. Secondly, if we are fair to England and to the idea of equal representation throughout Europe, that will enhance the power of the larger units of Europe rather than the smaller units and, by doing so, will reduce the power of the Commission. I am therefore very much in favour of the Government's point of view.

Mr. Home Robertson: It is an unspeakable joy to follow the authentic voice of the Tory empire loyalist. I always enjoy listening to the speeches of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), whether he is flogging a dead horse or not. When I saw him rising to his feet, I thought that he was going to solve all our problems. We are looking for an extra seat for Scotland and he has

made his views clear on previous occasions—I understand that on Second Reading he thought that the number of seats anywhere would be irrelevant.
I thought that he was going to solve the problem by doing away with the MEP for Northamptonshire and giving an extra seat to Scotland. But I see that he is muttering behind his hand. Perhaps he is prepared to accept a manuscript amendment to that effect, which would get us out of the problem and give us an extra seat in Scotland.
I agree with practically every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said about the tyranny of the minority from which we suffer in Scotland. That is a deep running sore in Scotland. It is affecting every aspect of public policy and public life, and until that constitutional issue is sorted out, nothing will go right. It is about time that the Government addressed themselves to that problem, in relation to our representation in the European institutions and right across the board. It is an important and serious matter.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: Here is the other authentic voice of the empire loyalist.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman was discussing representation in Scotland. He suggests that there should be other constitutional changes there. Would not such constitutional changes mean that ultimately there would be a reduction in the representatives coming from Scotland to this place, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has suggested?

Mr. Home Robertson: I would not necessarily quarrel with that.

Mr. McAllion: Perhaps the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) will not be here.

Mr. Home Robertson: As my hon. Friend says, it would give us all the greatest joy if the hon. Member for Ayr and some of his hon. Friends stopped coming here, or—more important still—if they were not in the Scottish Parliament when we succeed in establishing it.
The hon. Member has made me think of another extraordinary argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North about Britain being a nation. How can a united kingdom be a nation? I know that Conservative Members find the fact difficult to grasp, but the United Kingdom is not a nation; it is a union of nations. For such a union to thrive, all the nations within it must have their place, and must be respected. That is not happening now.
I admit that I do not altogether agree with everything that has been said by some of my hon. Friends, which will not come as a surprise to them. I must own up to having been one of the five Labour Members who voted for the Third Reading of the Bill on the Maastricht treaty. I make no apology for that. I believe that Europe is important, that it is the way forward for our people, and that it must develop. Europe's Parliament and its other institutions must develop, too, and that will be possible only if those institutions are seen to be increasingly democratic and credible, and to identify with the peoples of Europe.
That brings me back to the geographical difficulties associated with the British single-Member constituencies


in the European Parliament. I represent one of the numerous Westminster constituencies which lies within the Euro-constituency of South of Scotland. Several hon. Members have already referred to that Euro-constituency. Indeed, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is the battle-scarred veteran of a lost deposit there.

Mr. Wallace: The first lost deposit in a European election.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman takes great pride in that fact. The constituency stretches for almost 6,000 square miles, from Ailsa Craig in the firth of Clyde to the Bass rock in the firth of Forth.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: There are no voters there.

Mr. Home Robertson: I once visited the Bass rock, which is in my constituency, and I was a little alarmed to see that a copy of The Sun was delivered to the lighthouse keeper—so I was not all that distressed when the lighthouse was closed down.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the expression, "addressing one's remarks to Ailsa Craig". Does that not feel much the same as trying to address a reasoned argument to Ministers, especially Scottish Office Ministers?

Mr. Home Robertson: That is rather a ponderous observation, especially as I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ailsa Craig, or rather for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), is in the Chamber. He represents Ailsa Craig almost as well as I represent Bass rock.
I was arguing that the single-Member Euro-constituencies, as they exist for Great Britain alone— Northern Ireland is not involved—stretch democratic credibility too far. There is an overwhelming case for a proportional system in elections to the European Parliament.
As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said at the time, if we had held a snap vote in the Chamber when he first made that point, I think that we would have carried the day, because the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and one or two Liberals were here, and so were my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).

Mr. George Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Home Robertson: Now here is the bad news.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend may not have heard the bad news—bad news, that is, for him. Today, I am thankful to say, the Transport and General Workers Union decided to continue its support for the first-past-the-post system. I believe that that wise decision represents a turning of the tide for proportional representation. I hope that my hon. Friend will now get off the bandwagon of proportional representation and return to the major issues, such as unemployment, privatisation and the appalling record of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I ask him not to be diverted too far.

Mr. Home Robertson: I shall refrain from asking my hon. Friend how the Transport and General Workers Union democratically reached that decision, and whether it was reached proportionately. But I take your point, Dame Janet; this is all miles out of order—or at least, my hon. Friend's intervention was out of order.
I return to the question whether there should be an additional Member of the European Parliament for Scotland. There is a case for electing such a Member—and, indeed, for electing the whole lot of them—by proportional representation.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) moved the lead amendment in this important group. Does she trust the Home Office or the Scottish Office to do the business of providing an extra seat for Scotland? I must not be drawn into speculation about boundaries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] An announcement about boundaries in my part of the world will be made in a couple of days' time. It is embargoed, so it would be totally out of order for me to speculate about where the proposed boundaries, daft though they may be, might be drawn.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Mr. Home Robertson: No, I must make progress.

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Home Robertson: I must give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, because he asked me a specific question.

Mr. Home Robertson: I have not asked it yet.

Mrs. Ewing: I do not believe that this is a question of trusting any member of the Government to argue the case for an additional seat for Scotland. The issue at stake is democratic representation for Scotland, where there is clear unanimity of opinion among the 61 Opposition Members of Parliament that there should be additional representation for Scotland in the European Parliament, which increasingly influences the decisions that affect our constituents's lives.

Mr. Home Robertson: Of course the hon. Lady is right about that, and I agree with her. However, the trouble with all aspects of life in Scotland these days is caused by the people who sit on the Government Front Bench. Good Lord! I see that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) is sitting there at the moment. Is he a Whip? Or has he suddenly been appointed to the Scottish Office, or perhaps the Home Office? What is he doing? Has there been a reshuffle? This is exciting news; news is unfolding on the hoof.
Nowadays it is people such as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham who make the decisions about how policies are administered and worked out in the machinery of government, and in everything else, in Scotland. We need look no further than last Friday's edition of The Scotsman to see what can happen when such people start trying to draw maps.
The leading article in The Scotsman described the Government's proposals for local authorities in Scotland as safe havens for the Tories. Who knows what might


happen if we got the extra seat for Scotland? Perhaps there would be an MEP for east Renfrewshire. If the Government are crazy enough to propose that there should be an all-purpose, single-tier authority for east Renfrewshire—

Mr. Eric Clarke: Or for Eastwood.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend is too much of a cynic. Surely he is not suggesting to me or to the House that the judgment of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), would he in any way affected in the execution of his duties as the Minister responsible for local government in Scotland, or that he would take certain decisions on the future structure of local government, simply because he is the constituency Member for Eastwood. My hon. Friend would never suggest such a thing.
But who knows, if Eastwood is good enough to have an all-purpose, single-tier authority, running social work, education, further education and everything else, although it has a population of only 84,000, why should it not have a Member of the European Parliament too?
I see that the hon. Member for Ayr is nodding. He is giving the game away, because exactly the same could be argued for Kyle and Carrick—or south Ayrshire, or whatever it is called. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire—or rather, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley—for saying so, but if the south Ayrshire local authority—Kyle and Carrick district council or whatever it is called—with a population of more than 100,000, makes sense as an all-purpose local authority, would it not be an appropriate candidate as a European parliamentary constituency?

Mr. Foulkes: I intend to nominate one of the councillors for Girvan, Glendoune for the job. She would do an excellent job, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree.

Mr. Home Robertson: The thought of Councillor Foulkes in Strasbourg is appealing, and—I am sorry to have to tell you, Dame Janet—there are more such potential constituencies. There is Moray, and—

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the idea of Councillor Foulkes, the councillor for Girvan, being dispatched to Strasbourg would be most popular with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is previous for the hon. Gentleman to select candidates for seats that have not yet been established.

Mr. Home Robertson: It would be a good thing if there were more female Members of the European Parliament for Scotland. As an old friend of Councillor Foulkes, I must say that that is a most commendable suggestion.

Mr. Wallace: What about Stirling?

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman mentions Stirling as another likely fiefdom or Tory safe haven. Stirling may be good enough for a single-tier, all-purpose local authority that would run the colleges, schools, social work departments, transport and everything else with a population of only 81,000. Stirling may be good enough

for that. The area was described by an editorial in The Scotsman—who am Ito differ from that newspaper?—as a safe haven for the Tories. Perhaps Mrs. Forsyth would be a likely candidate there.
The real shocker is one that I feel strongly about. It spoiled my porridge at breakfast last Friday. I read on the front page of The Scotsman that a new local authority was to be proposed in the House, either tomorrow or the next day, called Berwickshire and East Lothian. But it will not be Berwickshire and East Lothian, as it includes only a piece of East Lothian. The Government want to chop it up and add it to part of the Borders, because somebody thinks that that might be a Tory safe haven too. The population of such a local authority area would be 76,000—barely enough for a parliamentary constituency.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is worried about what the Government could create as a European constituency. Does he feel that that is what the Boundary Commission will propose on Friday for a parliamentary constituency? If the Boundary Commission, which is politically neutral by all accounts, can do something like that, what does the hon. Gentleman think a committee of placemen set up by the Secretary of State will do to European seats?

Mr. Home Robertson: My lips are sealed on any speculation about what the Parliamentary Boundary Commission may be about to propose. It would be improper to say anything about that before it makes its announcement on Thursday.
We know what information The Scotsman has obtained about what the Government may propose for local authorities. They may hope for Tory safe havens, including the dotty little conglomeration of part of the Borders and part of East Lothian which is joined by the Dunglass corridor over a bridge which just about ties it all together.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to show more ingenuity if he is to convince me that his remarks are relevant to the amendment.

Mr. Home Robertson: Do not worry, Dame Janet—I am about to conclude. This is the final one on my list, and it is the craziest. If that area is good enough to be an all-purpose, single-tier local authority—I do not know how on earth it could operate a full range of local services with such a small population and given the moronic geography of such an artificial local authority—perhaps the Government will propose it as a Euro-constituency?
I do not trust the Government. The hon. Member for Moray proposes the excellent idea that we can get an extra Member of the European Parliament to represent Scottish interests, even if we cannot pinch one from Northampton. But does she trust the Government not to mess around with the process—

Mr. Wallace: To gerrymander.

Mr. Home Robertson: I was not going to use that word. It never entered my head that the Conservatives would try such a thing.

Mrs. Ewing: This is a matter for the people of Scotland and their representatives. If all hon. Members who believe that there should be a Scottish Parliament were to take


destiny into their hands, the House would not be debating an increase in the number of Euro-seats in Scotland from eight to nine. Scotland would have 16 seats.
Part of the responsibility for this situation lies on the hon. Gentleman's shoulders, because he believes in the retention of the Union. I believe in the establishment of an independent Scotland that would put us on an equal basis with Denmark and other countries within the EC.

Mr. Home Robertson: I can see that I may run into difficulties with you in answering that question, Dame Janet. I believe passionately in Scottish home rule within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wallace: Does not the hon. Member mean home rule?

Mr. Home Robertson: No, not home rule. I believe in home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom and within the EC. Those are serious matters.
The trouble is that, during the past 15 years of grossly cynical administration by the minority administration in the Scottish office, the credibility of the machinery of government and the democratic process has been undermined again and again. We cannot trust the Government to do things in a fair, even-handed way. So in a sense, the hon. Lady may be right—we may have to take hold of our destiny. But how do we do it under the circumstances?

Mrs. Ewing: Recall the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Home Robertson: That may be one way. It is important that we should get extra representation for Scotland, and that it should be done fairly, and the sooner the better.

Mr. Maclennan: When the EC Council of Ministers met in Edinburgh on 11 and 12 December 1992, it would have been far from the thoughts of the Council that, in recommending the enlargement of the European Parliament, the one part of the United Kingdom that would not benefit from the decision would be Scotland —the country where it was meeting.
The EC Heads of Government, in reaching the decision to enlarge the European Parliament, properly took the view that those matters should be entrusted to the constitutional processes of the member countries, on the understanding that the processes would operate fairly and democratically, and in a proper constitutional manner.
It is set down in their decision, which it is the purpose of the Bill to enact, that the measure is recommended to member states for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It may well be asked, in connection with the group of amendments that we are considering, what the proper constitutional requirements are.
The phrase means little more than this. If it is necessary for Britain to proceed by way of Acts of Parliament to give effect to the decision, that is how we should proceed. As Members of Parliament, we are entitled to ask ourselves whether the proposals contained within the legislative provision are proper and reflect the consensus which prevails in the country about the constitution.
The basis of the Government's argument about the distribution of the six seats is too exclusively related to

population. In all the member states of the EC, population did not count a great deal in determining how seats should be divided out.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is a skilful barrister at law. Will he advise me whether it would be possible for a European seat to straddle Scotland and England? Does he think that that might have been one way of creating a rather more equitable distribution of seats?

Mr. Maclennan: I have no doubt that that matter would not be of interest to the Heads of EC Governments. If it were proper within our domestic law to make such a provision, it would be in order in terms of the decision that we are seeking to implement. It is possible within the EC. On the basis of previous Acts that established European parliamentary representation, it would not be possible within the United Kingdom.
It would be constitutionally possible to introduce an Act so to provide, but as we are building in the Bill on previous Acts which provided for the establishment of separate boundary commissions for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom, it would not be in accordance with precedent. But that is perfectly possible, just as it was possible in defiance of all constitutional convention not to transfer but to wind up entirely the government of London.
It would be possible to do almost anything under the terms of our unwritten constitution if Parliament were so inclined, which is a major reason why I think that the time has long since passed when we should have a written constitution setting out the precise powers, and limits to the powers, of the legislature and the Executive.
It is perfectly plain that the distribution of parliamentary seats between the member countries of the EC population was not a factor to which a great deal of weight was given in Edinburgh when the decision was arrived at. It is clear that there is great disparity of representation between Luxembourg and Germany. Luxembourg with its six seats is over-represented in population terms. Wholly different considerations from population gave rise to the decision to equate the treatment of France and the United Kingdom.
Therefore, it is neither necessary nor desirable to follow the argument in respect of Scotland that population should be the determinant, certainly for European purposes. The population argument has been well deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), so I do not wish to detain the House on that point. I do, however, wish to raise other issues.
The powers of the European Parliament, even as they are at present—a point touched on by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—are of increasing significance to the economic life of the nation, and touch in an immediate way upon the effectiveness of Government. Not a day passes in the discharge of my parliamentary duties when I am not conscious of the extent to which decisions of the Council of Ministers, which may or may not have been considered by the European Parliament but usually have been, affect the prosperity of my constituents.
I apologise for addressing my remarks to the interests that I represent in the House, but I do so briefly to illustrate the point. The fisheries regime, which is so critical, ultimately depends on decisions of the EC and the


attitudes of the European Parliament. The agriculture regime, which is critical to the prosperity of my agricultural and rural areas, depends so much upon the effectiveness of the European Parliament.
There are also the prospects of the oil industry, for preserving the environment, and therefore the attraction of tourism. Scarcely an issue that has to be dealt with in one's daily mailbag does not have a European dimension, and that is increasingly so.

Dr. Godman: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he agree that the European Parliament has the power to constrain to some extent the decision making of that unelected body, the European Commission?

Mr. Maclennan: I think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right, as so often with what he has to say on these matters.
Because there is a public and growing perception of the fact that the European Parliament impinges on the lives of people, it is beyond comprehension in Scotland—I put it in that emotive way—that, at a time when it is intended to increase the representation of the United Kingdom, Scotland will not share in that development. That argument cannot be countered by arguments about population when population so clearly has not played a part in the basic decision to increase the representation of this country.
6.45 pm
In earlier debates on the Bill, the Minister touched on some of the issues contained in the amendments. I put it to him that to focus so narrowly on the population question is entirely to miss the point. Others have spoken of the geographical difficulties of representing Scotland, particularly its highlands and islands. I am as aware of that as anyone in the House, as, even under the present dispensation, I represent some 2,800 square miles of Scotland, which is a substantial area.
If the Boundary Commission has its way, it is about to be enlarged by the addition of a further 300 or 400 square miles. Therefore, I know about that argument, but it is not one to which I would attach the greatest weight.
I wish to reply to what the Minister said on that in his winding-up speech on Second Reading. In advocating an additional Member, it is not our intention to seek to solve the Scottish geographical conundrum. I do not think that that is open to us. If we are to adopt the system of election that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends advocate, the geographical base of representation will be much wider than that at present. It would be wider even than that of Mrs. Winifred Ewing, Member of the European Parliament for the Highlands and Islands.
We do not seek to make the task of travelling around Scotland easier by adding to Scotland's representation, but rather to address the sense of outrage that is felt by those in Scotland who see a decision taken by Her Majesty's Government in Edinburgh to enlarge the membership of the European Parliament but to exclude Scotland from that process.
Scotland has at least as varied an economy and social problems as the United Kingdom as a whole. Many matters there are distinct and unique. Its peripherality and its sparsity are unequalled in any part of the United Kingdom.
I say that not because of the need to cover the ground by the MEP, but because it creates its own distinctive problems. Those problems have been recognised in recent decisions by the Council of Ministers, in deciding what structural assistance should be available in the highlands and islands, and there alone, not in any part of England. That makes the case for a particular deal for Scotland justifiable in terms of the diversity and heterogeneity of the United Kingdom.
I profoundly hope that, as the debate has progressed, and as hon. Members from both sides have supported the amendments—there has been only one intervention against the amendments: from the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—the Government should accept the force of the argument. I do not propose to canvas all the arguments that have been mentioned by others in the debate, but will simply confine myself to my own point.
When we move to alter the shape of our democracy, it is extremely important that it should be done with cross-party consent. If the Government do not accept the amendments, they are flying in the face of the expressed consent of the House. That would be a highly undesirable development, and, for that reason, I hope that they will agree to the amendments tabled.

Mr. Eric Clarke: The argument advanced by many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members is that we need more representatives in the EC and in the European Parliament if we are to democratise that institution. That is the desire of many people throughout Britain and the other countries represented. The role of the Commissioners and appointees must be diminished, and Scotland's voice should be heard.
What do we do when the new member nations join? Will more time be taken to debate and discuss specific items on the agenda because there will be more representatives from those new member countries? I see them being slower and more deliberate—rightly so, if they are to have a say in laying down laws.
The United Kingdom representatives should not just be members of the august body: representations should be heard from all parts of the United Kingdom, as they are from the länder in Germany, which lobby for their own interests. I am all for that representation, because I think that we are losing.
As an hon. Member who represents an area that qualifies for RECHAR money, I lay the blame at the feet of the Government. That money is not being taken up —not because of any lack of effort on the part of the European Parliament and, in particular, our own representative from Lothian, who has cross-party support in this, but because of the lack of additionality money from the Government, who have not honoured their so-called promises.
As we heard in a debate earlier in the week, there are many areas throughout the United Kingdom that will now qualify for the RECHAR fund because of mine closures. There have been many promises and hints that the mining communities will be helped, but if they get as much help as we and many of the other older mining areas have had, they will be toiling in many ways.
There is a need to speak up in the House, in the European Parliament and, yes, in the media, because there is a practical proposition to be made. Many other countries, such as Eire, seem to benefit from being EC


members in a more practical way than Scotland. I hope that, when some of the legislation is passed—I am harking back to the mining industry—we shall not have closures alone in the steel and coal industries. I hope that the coal industry in Scotland will be an industry if privatisation comes off, and that there will be EC help to retain it for ever more. As we all know, we have great assets in that part of the world.
There has been talk of boundary changes. Some of the things that have emerged—especially pertaining to the leak from The Scotsman—are reminiscent of the Vance-Owen agreement. We seem to have corridors not of Muslims but of Tories—being kept in an enclave to ensure that no one encroaches on their positions.
There are some boundary changes that we should like to be made: we should like to have Berwick-upon-Tweed back, for example. Berwick belongs to the Scottish nation and was stolen from us many years ago—[Interruption.] Yes, and perhaps some other places that I do not know. I would happily put in a claim right now if that would give the Scottish nation another representative or two.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has referred to my constituency. I hope that he will recall that Berwick-upon-Tweed has changed hands between England and Scotland 15 times over several centuries, and that it would be somewhat disruptive if that were to continue.
I put it to him that the Boundary Commission's activities on both sides of the border at Berwick-upon-Tweed could give us considerable cause for anxiety, given that the same people who will be implementing the Bill appear—if the rumours are true—to be making the most extraordinary proposals about the very piece of Berwickshire with which Berwick has traditionally been associated over those centuries.

Mr. Clarke: I do not intend to declare war on the people of that area, for whom I have great affection—as I do for my Geordie friends in the coalfields further south.
This is a serious matter, which should not be left to the Government. It should not be left to any Ministry, and especially not to Dover house or St. Andrew's house. If the people of Scotland were asked, they will give the answer that they gave at the election; they need full representation, and they need it in Europe. I shall leave it at that, as I think that the geographical case has been made by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Allen: This has been a very good debate. Although the Opposition wholeheartedly welcome—

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you confirm that we are in Committee, and that it is open to any hon. Member to speak twice if called by you?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I can confirm that that is so.

Mr. Allen: Although the Opposition wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's decision to grant one of the extra seats to Wales, the decision to exclude Scotland from the distribution is unacceptable to us. It shows the contempt in which the Conservative party holds those parts of the country in which they lack support.
The Government are effectively saying to 5·1 million people, "You don't vote for us, so we'll deny you adequate representation." The Home Secretary said on Second Reading just the other day that he is fighting for England. It is a shame that he cannot bring himself to fight for the other countries in the Union with as much force as he says he fights for England.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I readily accept that the average size of a Scottish Euro-constituency is marginally smaller than that of an English one. It is nevertheless greater than the average constituency in Wales will be if the proposals are implemented.
The Home Secretary has given no indication that he took the geographical size of the constituencies into account in his calculation, as he is entitled to do by law, under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. If constituency size were taken into consideration, it would be obvious that Scotland requires greater representation than it is currently given. The Conservatives are willing to push through a measure amounting to a relative lessening of Scotland's representation in Strasbourg, without even an independent look into the matter.
The Labour party firmly believes that the Scottish people should have one of the extra seats. In the Europe of the regions and nations, the very least that this Parliament should do is allocate to Scotland a fair share of the new seats to be distributed. An extra seat for Scotland, like the extra seat given to Wales, would mean far more in terms of increased representation than one more or less seat for England. With that in mind, the Opposition propose to divide the House in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on assuming so effectively for the time being the leadership of the Opposition—even if she let it slip that she was only a front for her dynamic research assistant.
The hon. Lady sharpened up the attack from the Opposition Benches, but I do not think that her essential argument that, to be an equal partner, Scotland needs more seats is very convincing. Partnership cannot, thank goodness, be defined by numbers in that way. If it was, it would presumably mean that a partnership could be equal only with equal representation—as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) cogently observed, although I thought that after that remark his speech went sadly astray.
Partnership between the countries of the United Kingdom is real and of enormous value to each of them. However, it does not finally depend on giving any part artificially high representation in the European Parliament or, indeed, at Westminster where Scotland has long had enhanced representation.
In many ways, this debate is a reprise of the one on Second Reading. I make no complaint about that. I realise that Scottish Members would like an extra seat in Scotland and I understand why they and other hon. Members argue persistently that they should have one. However, I am as sure now as I was on Second Reading that an extra seat would not be justified and that the Government are right to give five of the extra seats to England and one to Wales. That is what a distribution based on electorate sizes—the fairest way of deciding the matter—produces.
7 pm
It is impossible to get average Euro-constituency sizes exactly the same in the different countries of the United Kingdom—there must be a rounding up or down. In each case, that has always been done in favour of the smaller country and never in favour of England. As a result of this Bill, the average English Euro-constituency will still be 4 per cent. larger than the average Scottish one.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister made a fair point, that it is difficult to average the whole thing out. Does he accept that, by allocating four seats to England, one to Wales and one to Scotland—that would be the consequence of this amendment—the averages for Scotland and Wales would be within 8,000 of each other? That is a remarkably close proximity, given the large size of the constituencies. It would approximate much more closely to the Minister's objective than to what is being proposed by the Government.

Mr. Lloyd: No. It would mean that two constituent countries of the United Kingdom would be further from the average than they would otherwise have been. The next best thing to 5:1 would be to give the six seats to England. However, that would mean that the average Welsh seat would have a larger electorate than the average English seat. We did not want to allow that, so we gave Wales the benefit of the statistics and it has the extra seat. That is justified for Wales, but not justified for Scotland on the same grounds.
I understand the argument for distributing the seats in a different way. This distribution keeps to the advice given by the Select Committee in 1978, adopted by the then Labour Government in the 1978 Act and expanded from the Dispatch Box by Brynmor John, who represented a Welsh seat, and others in the Labour Government. The Labour Government were right at that time. This is the fairest way of distributing the seats. I am sorry to see Labour Members and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), resiling from the arrangements that not he but his colleagues supported when in office.
The hon. Member for Moray quoted Garrett Fitzgerald suggesting that, in the negotiations that took place in the Community before it was decided how many seats each EC country would have, the then Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, secured 81 seats for the United Kingdom on the understanding that Scotland and Wales would have enhanced representation.
Obviously, I do not know what Lord Callaghan said in private discussions, but the outcome was that the largest countries in the EC—West Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom—all got 81 seats, providing overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the needs of Scotland did not secure United Kingdom-enhanced representation. I cannot tell whether Lord Callaghan tried and failed or did not try at all, but, clearly, no special significance was granted by our fellow members with regard to Scotland, Wales or any national entity, two of which have been referred to this afternoon by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—the Walloons and the Catalonians.
Clearly, seats are distributed between the sovereign countries of the Community in Europe with regard to their being separate single sovereign entities. The hon. Member for Moray and several other hon. Members argued that

Scotland should have at least the same number of seats as Denmark, which has a similar population size. Undoubtedly, if Scotland were a member of the Community separate from England, Wales and Northern Ireland—as the hon. Lady would wish—it would have a similar number of seats.
I am sure—I refer to points made and queries launched in my direction by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—that Scotland would overall have less leverage in the EC than it does as part of the United Kingdom, which has two commissioners to Denmark's one and, effectively, much greater representation in the European Community. Above all, the United Kingdom has a much more powerful voice in the Council of Ministers than England, Wales or Scotland could ever have on their own.
When the interests of Scotland especially demand it, Scottish Ministers can and do go to the Council of Ministers with the weight of the entire United Kingdom behind them. I do not want to dwell on this point. It is part of the wider argument about the nature and benefit of the Union, which puts Scotland in a more powerful position in the Community. It would be alone, as is Denmark with its number of seats in the European Parliament.
Before I sit down, I shall revert to the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). He referred to the St. Andrew's speech in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is alleged to have promised to fight for more representation for Scotland in the European Parliament. On Second Reading, I said that I had not read that speech, but I have now. I realise that the hon. Gentleman could not have read it at that time and probably still has not done so, judging by his interventions today.
It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was talking not about the European Parliament but about the Committee of the Regions on which he is determined to make Scotland's voice heard, together with organisations such as Scottish Europa and the Scottish Trade International. I have a copy of the speech here. I will throw it across to the hon. Gentleman. He should sideline those areas in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised or undertook to produce an extra seat in the European Parliament because I would be interested to read it. If he wants me to give way to him, I will do so.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I have had the misfortune to re-read the speech several times. The Secretary of State did not, in that speech or his introduction to the stocktaking exercise, say that he would commit himself to reduced representation for Scotland. Does the Minister accept that that is what this Bill means?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend clearly said that he intended to work with the eight members of the European Parliament representing Scottish constituencies, whether or not he agreed with them politically. That was the undertaking he gave, and the number was eight.

Mr. Clarke: Does the Minister take on board that the Secretary of State, in his introduction to the document on stocktaking—he has joined us in the past few minutes, having shown no interest whatever in debate over several days—talked about increased representation in Europe? Where is that increased representation? If the Minister cannot assure us—as we are still in Committee and as the


Secretary of State can still catch Dame Janet's eye—why does not the Secretary of State have the guts to get up and assure us, instead of hiding behind the junior Minister?

Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Gentleman will know if he re-reads the speech, my right hon. Friend was referring to the Committee of the Regions. The hon. Gentleman owes my right hon. Friend an apology, and I hope that he will give it before the end of this evening.

Mrs. Ewing: There is a rumour sweeping the House that the closure will be moved on this debate, and many hon. Members still wish to speak. I draw the attention of the Minister to the development of the idea of direct elections, especially the debates that took place in 1977 and 1978 when the current Foreign Secretary said that the allocation of seats would be on a purely mathematical basis. Is the Minister saying that the Government have not moved from that approach, and take no account of geography or the needs of smaller nations in the European Community?

Mr. Lloyd: Smaller nations have an enhanced representation in the European Parliament when they are sovereign, independent entities. Seats are divided between sovereign countries. The United Kingdom has been allocated 81 seats and they are divided, on the advice given in 1978 by the Select Committee, between the countries of the United Kingdom on the basis of arithmetic and the size of the respective electorates.

Mrs. Ewing: The Minister has clearly stated that, if Scotland were an independent, sovereign nation she would receive a different allocation of seats. Does he not accept the basic constitutional principle, however, that the people in Scotland are sovereign, not Parliament? The people of Scotland have clearly shown that they want additional representation within the European Parliament.

Mr. Lloyd: Every part of the United Kingdom would like extra representation in the European Parliament. I am sure that the hon. Lady heard me say that if Scotland were a separate member of the European Community it may well have enhanced representation. I doubted, however, whether it would have as much influence and leverage as it does now; indeed, I was quite sure that it would not. I then explained why.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the place in which we need strength is the Council of Ministers? Does he also agree that that showed through when we won objective 1 status for the whole of the highlands?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a good example. We want to be strongly represented in all parts of the Community. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and benefits from that.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: I should make some progress, because I sense that the Committee would like me to conclude. [Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. Hon. Members who want to engage in conversation should leave the Chamber.

Mr. Lloyd: Hon. Members have also put the practical argument that an extra seat could help the highlands and islands problem.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: I will not give way, because the Committee wants the debate to come to a conclusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, it does not."] The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland had plenty of opportunity to speak. In fact, he spoke for longer than I will have done. If he will excuse me, I will conclude my remarks.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd: I have said no.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister is frit.

Mr. Lloyd: That is not so.
The current Boundary Commission rules require that constituencies should be produced with electorates of, as near as possible, the same size. Departures can be made from the electoral quota, however, to take into account special factors such as geography. The Boundary Commission for Scotland did just that when it created the seat of Highlands and Islands, which has a much smaller electorate than the Scottish average.
I doubt whether any Boundary Commission would feel justified in going much further from the average than that. The odds must be that any new seat for Scotland would, therefore, reduce the average electorate size of the remaining more populous constituencies rather than radically reduce the geographical spread of the highlands and islands. I believe that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, at least, is convinced of that.
As I said on Second Reading, the arrangements for the distribution of seats between the particular countries of the United Kingdom is fair to all of them—to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Anything else, however, would be unfair to England.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Bill is an extremely unsatisfactory way in which to address such a serious issue. I wonder how many other member states of the Community will decide the allocation of parliamentary constituencies on the basis of a vote in one Chamber of their Parliament. How many of them have some independent means of determining how that allocation should take place?

Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is such a serious issue, why was he not present in the Chamber for the first three hours of the debate? Why has he just turned up?

Mr. Bruce: I must say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] Some Opposition Members now present were not here for the entire debate, either.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I would prefer the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) to continue his speech. If we are to have such harsh rules, I shall bear them in mind in the future.

Mr. Bruce: I should remind the Committee that I spoke on the Bill's money resolution, which was debated last week.
I am surprised that the Government decided not to accept the amendment. If they had, the debate need not have continued. I find it deeply offensive, as I said when I spoke on the money resolution, that the first line on the first page of the Bill mentions the city of Edinburgh.
The Prime Minister claimed that he was bringing the European process to Scotland and ensuring that Scotland is fully involved in that process. The fact that he has now introduced a Bill in which Scotland alone is denied a share of the increased representation at the European Parliament is deeply offensive. The Prime Minister's decision is extremely damaging to him and it is extremely harsh to Scotland. The Bill is not the way in which such matters should be decided.
Hon. Members have also referred to the current representation for Scotland, with which I should have thought the Government were deeply unhappy. There are eight MEPs from Scottish constituencies; seven of them are Labour Members, the other is an SNP Member. I am not criticising those MEPs individually—they were elected, and that is fine—but they do not give a true representation of the cross-section of political opinion in Scotland. It is a profound irony that the Government cannot even get one Conservative MEP elected. I should have thought that the Government would welcome the opportunity for a ninth MEP from Scotland, because that might give them an itsy-bitsy chance of returning a Conservative representative from Scotland to the European Parliament.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: That depends on how the Government gerrymander the boundaries.

Mr. Bruce: That is true.
It is a real disgrace—that is too mild a word—that we are about to have European parliamentary seat boundary reviews, in the middle of parliamentary boundary reviews, while the Government are making up their own local boundaries as they go along. There is no correlation between the three.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) whether it was possible to have a seat that straddled the border. Presumably he believes that that would achieve a greater parity of numbers. Many of us would have considerable difficulties with the practical consequences of such a decision and would not wish to be the Member for that constituency and balance its conflicting interests. I suppose that it would, however, reunite the county of Berwickshire, although I know that two of my colleagues have differing views on the merits of that argument. If there was a will and pure numbers was the problem, the matter could be resolved. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley has a fair point.

Mr. Beith: If the commissioners appointed are not given an additional seat in Scotland to play with, does that mean that they will be unable to do what they are now doing in my hon. Friend's part of Scotland? In that region they are crossing all kinds of community and traditional boundaries to produce the most extraordinary configuration of seats. That option will not be open to the commissioners in Scotland under the Bill.

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend is right. His intervention and that of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley show that the Government's claim that this is simply a matter of numbers and an attempt to achieve a degree of parity is not the substantive argument.

Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend has referred to cross-border seats for the eastern side of the border. Does he accept that there might be a case for having what could be described as a Solway seat, comprising Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, Dumfries, Carlisle, Penrith and The Border, Copeland and Workington? That area is a communal one, it is home to Border Television and it has a sense of community. It also includes the seat of the Secretary of State for Scotland, so he could kill two birds with one stone. The right hon. Gentleman might end up with a more compact seat for his MEP to represent and at least give Scotland half of what is required, if not the whole.

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It raises questions about the Solway firth and the fact that there would be two different local authorities and two different methods of discharging sewage by two different forms of ownership within the same constituency.
The Government's argument that it was impossible to provide justice for Scotland does not stand up. A numbers argument is not valid because, as the Government have acknowledged, that is not the paramount objective. On local government boundaries, the Government propose that the whole of the Highland region should be a unitary local government authority.
That is an absurd proposition. It may be all right in terms of numbers, but it makes no sense in terms of geographical community links and denies a proper community identity. It boils down to the fact that the only way in which a community can be represented as a single, all-purpose authority is for it to be Conservative-controlled or, better still, a dead heat with the Labour party, so that the gerrymandering will tilt the balance and secure control. That is not how to determine fair and democratic representation.
If the Government regard such comments purely as party political objection, they should think seriously about the implications of their actions. They have already abolished a tier of local government in London and the metropolitan counties and are fixing local government boundaries in Scotland to meet their own needs. They are determining the allocation of parliamentary seats for the European Parliament on the basis that it is controlled by a political chamber—Westminster—rather than an independent constitutional process.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, it is high time that we fundamentally reviewed our constitutional procedures and processes and how we do things in this country. Our constitution is such that a law passed by this Parliament can supersede a previous law. There is no external reference and no opportunity for second judgment or for effective judicial review of primary legislation.
Members such as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who spoke earlier and opposes the whole idea of the European Community, want to fight for the sovereignty of Parliament. Many of us regard the sovereignty of Parliament not as a democratic advantage but rather as a democratic abuse. A party that can take


control of this Chamber on a minority vote can not only impose its policies for the duration of a Parliament but can fix the mechanism of the constitution to preserve its power base against external challenges.
That serious weakness of our political system is, ultimately, turning it into a decadent, corrupt and disintegrating system, which is becoming increasingly out of touch with the people, who cannot understand why they have a Government whom most of them did not vote for and decisions—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is placing a number of constitutional issues on this group of amendments. I do not think that it will bear the weight.

Mr. Bruce: I willingly accept your guidance, Dame Janet. The simple point is that we should have an independent mechanism for determining how people are elected to any institutions, not only the United Kingdom Parliament but the European Parliament. I object to the lack of independence of that procedure, which is why we have been forced to table an amendment.
I should have preferred it if we had not had this debate and this amendment. The only reason why we have them is that there is no other theatre in which we can make that argument, achieve justice or get an independent assessment. There is no other theatre in which the decisions are not determined by the political bias of the controlling group. In a true democratic constitution, the rights of minorities are safeguarded and the Administration's right to ride roughshod over minorities is limited. In the United Kingdom, that is not the case, and it is a damaging and weak feature of our system of Government.
The amendment simply seeks to ensure that the Government recognise that the Prime Minister took the European presidency to Edinburgh as a post-election symbol of the enhanced role that Scotland would play as part of the United Kingdom within the European Community. Nobody could have believed that the upshot of that would be the obscenity—from a Scottish point of view—of a Bill enshrined on the basis of an agreement signed in Edinburgh, which denies the citizens of the country of which Edinburgh is the capital a share in an increased allocation of representation.
The Secretary of State for Scotland should feel utterly ashamed that he has been unable to secure the follow-through which the Prime Minister promised in Edinburgh. The Scottish people have reason to question the Prime Minister because, a year after the general election, he came to Scotland and said that he stood by the United Kingdom. He said that Scotland had voted for the Union and that it was his mission as Prime Minister to ensure that Scotland played its full part within the Union. How can the Bill be encapsulated as Scotland playing its full part in the United Kingdom?
Scotland is finding that its influence within Europe is being deliberately diluted as a direct consequence of that action of the Prime Minister. His promises are worthless, as are those of the Secretary of State. Scotland will continue to be sold short. The Government talk about the Union, but use it as a bullying tactic to ensure that the

aspirations of the Scottish people are frustrated. We insist that the Government think again and recognise that the Scottish people deserve better.

Mrs. Ewing: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate—[Interruption.] Although it may be disappointing to those standing beyond the Bar of the House to realise that the debate will continue for some time, this is an important issue and I suggest that they remain silent to hear the necessary arguments.
The Minister of State was rather ungracious to suggest that having a dynamic research officer should not be correctly recognised. All hon. Members are greatly indebted to their staff at constituency and parliamentary level for the work that they undertake on our behalf. If they correctly carry through our advice and instructions, that should be recognised. We could all do with a bit of humility in recognising our staff's work.
This fairly wide-ranging debate has lasted much longer than many people anticipated. It has been interesting to note the consensus that has emerged, not only among the Opposition but among Conservative Members, who have shown their belief that Scotland should have additional representation within the European Parliament. Members may disagree on points of detail, but, on the basic principle that Scotland should have an additional seat in the European parliament, the consensus is of fundamental importance.
The Minister of State failed to answer a question raised in the context of "Scotland in the Union". On page 22, section 5(9), the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
the Government have taken steps to complement and add to that strong representation"—
he was talking about the European dimension—
to ensure that this is a multi-pronged approach to promoting Scotland's interest in Europe".
The European Parliament must form a fundamental part of that approach, because it is an institution which will develop and accrue unto itself additional powers that affect all our lives.
The Secretary of State added:
As Europe continues to develop, the Government will keep under review Scotland's profile in Europe to ensure it matches Scotland's needs".
Nevertheless, in one of the pieces of legislation that have emerged from the Edinburgh summit we find that Scotland's position is not enhanced; nor are her needs being matched.
Not only should the Minister read the book by Garret Fitzgerald, which makes interesting reading about the development of direct elections in the European Community, but he should look back to the 1970s, when the principle of direct elections was first mooted in this House. The record of the Select Committee at that time shows that the Scottish National party, which had substantial representation in the House,. gave clear evidence to that Committee. A great deal of interest was generated in the House on the issue of direct elections. Members continue to suggest that some people still fear the idea of European development, whereas I suggest that the development of the Community is crucial to what we are discussing.
Our discussion of the amendment has dealt with the relationship of Scotland to this Parliament and to the Community. It is clear that the Community is changing. That development will have an impact on the lives of us all.
I welcome that development; as part of it, the relationship of Scotland as a nation to the Community as a whole is of critical importance.
The Parliament to which we have directly elected representation is of paramount importance—[Interruption.] My remarks may be regarded as boring by some of the noisier elements in the Committee. Some hon. Members may be wondering why I am speaking in this manner. I assure them that there are strong arguments for the national identities of our communities in the EC to be continued. Otherwise, we might as well talk about having a seat for the south-west Pyrenees or north-west Germany. There are strong identities in the nations of the EC. There should be a single Member representing an identified constituency where there is a strong and continuing relationship between that Member and his or her constituents.
We must also have the settlement and negotiation of national interests between the different countries to ensure that we find an appropriate formula for proceeding. Our purpose in tabling the amendment is to point out that an appropriate formula has not been found to represent the national interest of Scotland. In that connection, during the debates in the 1970s, the present Foreign Secretary—[Interruption.]

Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I am anxious to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is saying. Given the babble of hon. Members who have not participated in our debates, it is difficult to hear her. Perhaps those who are anxious to listen to what is being said may be allowed to do so in peace.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The Chair will decide. I should have thought, as the hon. Gentleman is sitting right next to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), that he would have no difficulty in hearing her. I agree, however, that there is considerable noise in the Chamber. If hon. Members are unable to remain quiet, they must leave and conduct their conversations elsewhere.

Mrs. Ewing: Some hon. Members may find it difficult to understand a Scottish accent, or perhaps I should refer to it as a European accent belonging to one who speaks with a European voice. Hon. Members who do not want to listen to a Scottish or European voice should perhaps go elsewhere.
I was about to recall that the present Foreign Secretary said in 1978, when we were debating what was then the European Assembly Elections Bill:
The Select Committee decided that the right approach was the mathematical approach".—[Official Report, 2 February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 786.]
I find the whole situation depressing. Today, in 1993, the Community having moved substantially forward since that time, there has been no change in the British Government's attitude. They may have changed colour, but they have not changed their attitude. They observe mathematical niceties rather than looking to the communautaire spirit which I strongly endorse.
In the debates that followed the publication of the Select Committee report, many interesting speeches were made by hon. Members, some of whom are still here; others have departed. For example, in the debate on

24 November 1977—we were still discussing the issue of direct elections—the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said:
if one is talking about the capacity of individual people to exert influence in the increasingly complex world in which we live, if they are able to elect persons directly to a European Parliament, I contend that this gives them another dimension of influence".—[Official Report, 24 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1804.]
That remains true today. We are talking about the dimension of influence, and Scotland's influence will not be enhanced by this legislation.
In that debate in November 1977, Mr. Fairgrieve—now Sir Russell Fairgrieve—who then represented Aberdeenshire, West and who is now chairman of the European Movement in Scotland and played host at various functions during the Edinburgh summit, said that we were trying to put Scotland somewhere halfway between Denmark and Yorkshire. We are not in that position. Scotland should have full recognition in the Community, with additional representation in the European Parliament, and that is what the amendment is about.
It is almost demeaning that I should have found it necessary to table this series of amendments—that on behalf of the people of Scotland, who are equal in number to the people of Denmark, I should have to beg for a single crumb from the rich man's table here at Westminster. We in Scotland should be equal and have 16 seats in the EC. That may be achieved only as a result of being an independent nation, when we would also have access to the Council of Ministers, have our place in the discussions and, as the Community develops, have a position as the host nation for Commission activities.
I am fed up thinking about the time in Edinburgh at the European summit when we were seen as the tartan waitress. Our tartan was used for the benefit of a Conservative Government who had only 11 out of 72 MPs in Scotland, with no Member of the European Parliament representing a Scottish constituency. Yet from Edinburgh emerges a Bill by which we are denied additional representation.
I do not want Scotland to continue in the role of a tartan waitress. I do not want Scotland to have to continue to eavesdrop on the counsels of the world. I want Scotland to be there, helping to influence the development of the European Community and the international community as a whole. If the Government have any respect for Scotland, they will at least grant us one additional seat in the European Parliament.

Mr. Greg Knight (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 302, Noes 49.

Division No. 317]
[7.37 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkins, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Ashby, David
Bates, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Batiste, Spencer


Aspinwall, Jack
Bellingham, Henry






Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fry, Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gallie, Phil


Booth, Hartley 
Gardiner, Sir George


Boswell, Tim
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorst, John


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Hicks, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Sir Ralph (North


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dicks, Terry
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Elletson, Harold
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knox, Sir David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Legg, Barry


Fishburn, Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lidington, David


Forth, Eric
Lightbown, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)





Luff, Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


MacKay, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Maclean, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Norris, Steve


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Madel, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Maitland, Lady Olga
Ottaway, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Page, Richard


Mans, Keith
Paice, James


Marland, Paul
Patnick, Irvine


Marlow, Tony
Patten, Rt Hon John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Mates, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Merchant, Piers
Porter, David (Waveney)


Milligan, Stephen
Powell, William (Corby)


Mills, Iain
Rathbone, Tim


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Moate, Sir Roger
Richards, Rod


Monro, Sir Hector
Riddick, Graham


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Robathan, Andrew


Needham, Richard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Nelson, Anthony





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Livingstone, Ken


Alton, David
Llwyd, Elfyn


Barnes, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Beggs, Roy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Madden, Max


Canavan, Dennis
Maginnis, Ken


Chisholm, Malcolm
Mahon, Alice


Connarty, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Cryer, Bob
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cummings, John
Rendel, David


Davidson, Ian
Salmond, Alex


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Skinner, Dennis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Galloway, George
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Trimble, David


Gordon, Mildred
Tyler, Paul


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wallace, James


Harvey, Nick
Welsh, Andrew


Hood, Jimmy
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Janner, Greville
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Malcolm Bruce.


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 255, Noes 306.

Division No. 318]
[7.50 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Adams, Mrs Irene
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Stuart


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allen, Graham
Bennett, Andrew F.


Alton, David
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Berry, Dr. Roger


Armstrong, Hilary
Betts, Clive


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blair, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boateng, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Boyce, Jimmy


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Keith


Battle, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)






Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Burden, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Byers, Stephen
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Illsley, Eric


Clelland, David
Ingram, Adam


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jamieson, David


Coffey, Ann
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jowell, Tessa


Corston, Ms Jean
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cousins, Jim
Keen, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Darling, Alistair
Kirkwood, Archy


Davidson, Ian
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Livingstone, Ken


Denham, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Donohoe, Brian H.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dowd, Jim
McAllion, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Ian


Eagle, Ms Angela
Macdonald, Calum


Eastham, Ken
McFall, John


Enright, Derek
McKelvey, William


Etherington, Bill
Mackinlay, Andrew


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maclennan, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McWilliam, John


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mandelson, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foulkes, George
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fyfe, Maria
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Galloway, George
Maxton, John


Gapes, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Garrett, John
Meale, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Alun


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godsiff, Roger
Milburn, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Miller, Andrew


Gordon, Mildred
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gould, Bryan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Graham, Thomas
Morgan, Rhodri


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gunnell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Harman, Ms Harriet
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Henderson, Doug
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, William





O'Neill, Martin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Patchett, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Pendry, Tom
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Pickthall, Colin
Snape, Peter


Pike, Peter L.
Soley, Clive


Pope, Greg
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Spellar, John


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Prescott, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Primarolo, Dawn
Stevenson, George


Purchase, Ken
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Straw, Jack


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rathbone, Tim
Tipping, Paddy


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dennis


Redmond, Martin
Tyler, Paul


Reid, Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rendel, David
Wallace, James


Richardson, Jo
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wareing, Robert N


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wicks, Malcolm


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rooker, Jeff
Wilson, Brian


Rooney, Terry
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wise, Audrey


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Salmond, Alex
Wray, Jimmy


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Short, Clare
Mr. Jon Owen Jones, and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butler, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Butterfill, John


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clappison, James


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Congdon, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bates, Michael
Cormack, Patrick


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Beggs, Roy
Cran, James


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bendall, Vivian
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Devlin, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Eggar, Tim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Elletson, Harold


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butcher, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)






Evennett, David
Knox, Sir David


Faber, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fabricant, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fishburn, Dudley
Legg, Barry


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lidington, David


Forth, Eric
Lightbown, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew


Fry, Peter
Maclean, David


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maginnis, Ken


Garnier, Edward
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gill, Christopher
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Milligan, Stephen


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hanley, Jeremy
Monro, Sir Hector


Hannam, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patnick, Irvine


Horam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Sir Ralph (North
Porter, David (Waveney)


Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





Shersby, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sims, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trend, Michael


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Trimble, David


Soames, Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Speed, Sir Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spencer, Sir Derek
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spink, Dr Robert
Walden, George


Spring, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sproat, Iain
Ward, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waterson, Nigel


Stern, Anthony
Watts, John


Stephen, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sweeney, Walter
Willetts, David


Sykes, John
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thomason, Roy



Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Mr. Michael Brown.


Thurnham, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maclennan: I want to speak—

Mr. Roger Stott: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I realise that the House is in Committee, but I seek your guidance on how to reverse that procedure so that the Home Secretary can make a statement on a certain matter. I was in court this afternoon when a young Irish man was set free by a magistrate and the—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point is nothing to do with this Committee. I cannot deal with it; it must be dealt with by the Chair when the Committee reverts to being the House.

Mr. Stott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have ruled on the matter.

Mr. Maclennan: So far, clause 1 has been considered only in so far as it deals with the rather narrow question of whether an additional European Parliament seat should be allocated to Scotland. In fact, the clause goes a great deal further and wider than that. It is the core of the commitment to widen the United Kingdom's representation in the European Parliament, as set out in the decision
amending the Act concerning the election of representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage annexed to the Council Decision 76/787/ECSC,EEC, Euraton of 20th September 1976.
The background to the decision is the view taken by the Community Heads of Government that it was proper to enlarge the European Parliament to give membership to the new Länder of east Germany which had adhered to west Germany and to the European Community. That was a welcome step. However, we must determine whether it is necessary to give effect to that decision of the Council of


Ministers through the manner proposed by the Government, whether clause 1 is necessary to give effect to that decision or whether it is a self-executing decision under the terms of the treaty of Rome and the European Community Acts.
I make no secret of the fact that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends feel that the way in which the Government propose to widen the representation is undemocratic because it will only extend the unfairness of the present representation in the European Parliament. It would not greatly disquiet us if the Bill were found to be so defective as to be unsuitable for implementation by the House.
The question is whether it would be appropriate as well as necessary to give effect to clause 1. It might be argued that if we vote against the clause, that could defeat the Government's intentions and make it impossible for this country to ratify the decision taken by the Community Heads of Government at the Edinburgh summit. That might be regarded as unfortunate, but we believe that the position is not entirely clear. The legal status of both decisions taken on 1 February, to which clause 1 would give effect, and of the so-called Act, as amended, which is annexed to the 1976 Council decision, is obscure. That makes it difficult to determine what would happen if the British Parliament declined to pass this implementing Bill.
The authority on the question who has been drawn to my attention is the author T. C. Hartley who, in his book "The Foundations of European Community Law", second edition, 1988, page 24, writes:
The instrument providing for elections took an unusual form since all its substantive provisions are in an Act annexed to the Council decision. The legal nature of this Act is controversial. Does it take effect as an international agreement between the member states based on a draft recommended by the Council? Or does it take effect as a decision of the Council to which the member states have agreed?
Perhaps the best view is that article 138(3) of the European Community"—
he refers to the provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom Acts—
lay down a special procedure for amending these treaties which derogates from that in articles 236 EEC, 96 ECSC and 204 Euratom. If this view is correct, it takes effect as an Act of the member states, but forms part of the three treaties. The importance of this question is that the jurisdiction of the European Court to annul, interpret or enforce the Act depends on the Act's legal status.
I think that you will agree, Mr. Lofthouse, that that is far from a conclusive view as to the necessity of clause 1 for the implementation of the decision taken by the Heads of Government in Edinburgh. Certainly, it is true that, normally, if the Government commit themselves to a binding international agreement, the commitment stands, regardless of any subsequent inability, for domestic reasons, to implement it.
To take another example from a different European sphere, if the European Court of Human Rights finds that British law is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, to which the United Kingdom is committed in international law, the Government are obliged to take steps to change the law and to make it clear to Parliament that this is an overrriding commitment.
If Parliament decides to reject their advice, the Government are placed in a very difficult position, which most Governments would naturally seek to avoid. Normally, the situation is avoided because of' the opportunity that Parliament is given, as the Government are giving us the present opportunity, to consider treaties

and any necessary implementing legislation before the Government are finally bound by the act of ratification. It is, however, avoided in the case of European Community legislation because the primacy of this is established in United Kingdom law by the European Communities Act itself.
In the case of the European Parliament elections, therefore, the question arises: are the Government already bound by the agreement at Edinburgh and the subsequent decision by the Council of Ministers, or is the procedure set out in the decision whereby the provisions are to enter into force following receipt of the last notification akin to ratification?
The language of the decision which clause 1 purports to be importing is, I submit, quite unclear on this point. Council decisions in general are binding in their entirety. Article 189 EEC would seem to make that point clear beyond peradventure. This one is to enter into force on the day of publication—that is, 9 February. It also states clearly that the provisions "shall" be applied to the elections to the European Parliament in 1994. That is made clear in article 2 of the decision, which says that the provisions
shall be applied for the first time in elections to the European Parliament to be held in 1994.
These questions may, therefore, fairly be asked. Is what we are doing necessary? Is it being done in vain? Is Parliament intervening in a manner that is simply not required by European Community law? Is it handling this matter in an inappropriate fashion?
On the other hand, the provisions—this is the curious contradiction in the decision—are merely "recommended" to member states
for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
That comes at the end of the preamble, just before article 1.
In short, the reference to respective constitutional requirements seems to imply that this is really a ratification process akin to that in article 236 for amendments to the treaty of Rome. But the other language and legal form of the decision give some grounds for arguing that the Government are already bound to implement the provisions, and that if Parliament were to choose to reject amendment 1, that would not free the Government from their obligation.
8.15 pm
The method of implementation is not laid down; we are not required by the decision to proceed in the manner in which the Committee is proceeding. We are certainly not bound to implement the Government's policy in this matter, for it is clear that the adoption of the decision is to be in accordance with our respective constitutional requirements, not according to any European Community law. If the Government were faced with the rejection by Parliament of clause 1 of this Bill, they could conceivably seek an alternative method, depending on the reasons for rejection.
Nor is any firm deadline laid down for implementation. I put it to the Committee that, if we reject clause 1, it will still be perfectly possible for the Government to meet their obligations under the decision by bringing forward a system of election which does not depend upon a boundary commission procedure, but which gives effect to a system of election which is pursued in many other member countries of the European Community—a proportional system which relies upon the votes cast in the


existing European parliamentary constituencies. Therefore, a vote to defeat clause 1 would in no way defeat the objectives of the Government in seeking to give effect to the decision.
I therefore submit that it is an act of high responsibility to question whether the Committee should embark upon a legislative process to implement a system of election which runs entirely counter to the other commitment of this country to seek a common system for elections to the European Parliament, and which is not necessary.
I have taken a little time to deploy these legal arguments about the necessity of clause 1 to avoid any charge being made by the Government that, in advocating its rejection, we are acting irresponsibly.

Mr. Beith: I have been following my hon. Friend's deployment of his case, to which he brings his customary legal authority. Looking at it more from a layman's point of view, would I be right in assuming that there is at least an argument for saying that the authority that supports the position in the treaty of Rome requiring a common system is more compelling than the authorities that he cites for implementing the additional number of seats, which would be the basis on which the Government might press us to vote that clause 1 stand part?

Mr. Maclennan: I would certainly accept that argument. Indeed, I would go further and say that, in the light of the decision taken by the European Parliament in March this year to adopt the de Gucht proposals, and the fact that under the presidency of Belgium in the autumn this matter will undoubtedly be brought on to the agenda of the Council of Ministers, it is highly probable that member countries of the European Community will progress further down the road to a common system of election before the 1994 election. It would be acting very much within the spirit of EC law—and, I would argue, within the letter—if we were to reject the way of implementing the decision that the Government have recommended to us.
I referred briefly to the deadline laid down for implementation. The decision envisages implementation in time for the 1994 elections, but it does not specify any earlier date after which it would be difficult, or impossible, to proceed on the basis of the new allocation. I concede that that last point would add to the political difficulty if the Bill were rejected—when I say "the Bill" I am talking about clause 1 of the Bill, because that is the heart of the matter. Other member states would not know whether to proceed on the assumption that the United Kingdom would find the means of implementation, or to conclude that the agreement could not come into force in time for the elections and make their own arrangements on the basis of the present allocation.
It seems reasonably clear from the wording of the decision that, if we fail to make provision for the election of extra MEPs, and therefore fail to notify in accordance with the decision, the other member states would be prevented from taking up their own allocations and the whole agreement would he held up. However, this is not the only way in which our obligation to implement the decision can be fulfilled.
It is possible that, if we do not pass clause 1, that will be seen by other member countries of the European

Community as putting a block in the way. That might be so interpreted by the Government that they felt unable to give effect to the decision. It is possible that other member states might try to bring us back to the negotiating table, seek an opt-out for Britain from the Government, or seek to take us to the European Court of Justice to clarify the legal position.
I referred earlier to Hartley. His view would seem to imply that the European Court of Justice might have the power to enforce the decision once notification had been given, but might be inhibited from doing so beforehand if it regarded the notification procedure as akin to ratification. There is another theoretical outcome: the Council of Ministers might recognise the difficulty of the United Kingdom's implementation by adopting a decision to amend the Act, leaving the United Kingdom allocation unchanged at 81 seats.

Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend is worrying me a little, or at least Hartley is. Does he conclude from Hartley that, in any challenge in the European Court, it is likely that the provisions of clause 1 would appeal to the Court more strongly than the provision of the treaty of Rome which requires us to have a common electoral system? I would find that a worrying conclusion for the court to draw.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not think that that is the conclusion to be drawn from Hartley. I think that the court would be more likely to conclude that the matter should be governed by Community law rather than by the domestic law of this country.
If the outcome of this temporary impasse was that the Council of Ministers thought it appropriate to ask us to adopt a new decision, leaving the United Kingdom representation allocation unchanged, that would require the consent of Her Majesty's Government. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government would be reluctant to accept an allocation of seats lower than that of France and Italy. It would be a temporary way out of the impasse for the Community because we would not be holding up the Community's development, but simply inflicting a wound on ourselves. It would be an unnecessary wound, as it would be open for us to proceed very speedily in a different way.
Clause 1 is unnecessary to fulfil our obligations: that is really the core of my argument. It is not necessary because a wholly different way of proceeding is available to the Government: it implements the purposes of the Bill as set out in its long title. All that the Bill seeks to do is to
give effect to a Decision of the Council of the European Communities … of 1st February 1993 having the effect of increasing the number of United Kingdom representatives to he elected to the European Parliament; and for connected purposes.
Nothing in that long title requires us to go down the route that the Government have chosen to give effect to the decision. The preferable route is one that has been adopted in all the other 11 countries of the European Community. It is a system of election that does not depend on the work of boundary commissions or allocation of seats along the lines proposed in the Bill. It would be necessary to insert a reference in the European Communities Act 1972—either by Order in Council or by primary legislation —hut it would no longer be necessary to amend the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as the Bill proposes.
There is a perfectly straightforward way of proceeding, which, to my mind, is infinitely preferable. It is more


democratic, and tends to support the obligation of this country under European Community law to adopt a common system of election, reinforced by the European Parliament as recently as March.
I submit that the House should strike out clause I of the Bill and proceed in a wholly new way to give effect to the decisions made at Edinburgh. If it does, it will meet with total understanding from our European Community partners, and widespread support from the vast majority of people in this country who recognise that the system that the Bill seeks to perpetuate in clause 1 is unfair and unrepresentative, distorting our representation and that of other countries' political parties in the European Parliament. It is damaging to the representativeness of Parliament, and is a step back from the developments that we want. I suggest that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

Mr. John Biffen: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who has spoken with courtesy and scholarship on what is undoubtedly a very important point. He was technical in its presentation because, as he rightly observed, it has much wider ramifications and I am sure that the Committee will be interested in the ministerial reply.
The hon. Gentleman's approach had something of the relentless charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and I hope that unofficial negotiations can be undertaken to conscript him into that wider audience of men of good will on this topic. However, I am not a mascot to the hon. Gentleman's organ grinder, so my contribution will be brief and wholly different. My intention is simply to place on record the fact that the clause increases the membership of the European Parliament, and the United Kingdom component or it, so that the total membership will stand at 567.
8.30 pm
Unlike the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I am happy to support the clause, but I should like to leave, just as a trace in the sand, a question mark over the assumption that we should always be increasing the membership of the European Parliament and of the Commission. I shall not say that such things are done thoughtlessly, but the rhetoric that accompanies them—phrases such as "increasing our influence"—implies that the additional Members in a larger Parliament will give us a more significant and indentifiable national interest than would otherwise be the case.
In the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who is well versed in North American affairs, I observe that I do not consider that Congress loses any of its effectiveness by being a smaller entity than many European national Parliaments and smaller than the Parliament at Strasbourg. I say that as no more than a passing observation to my hon. Friend, but it is not an idle passing observation.
The enlargement of the Community is in prospect and that will constantly call into question what size the Parliament should be. It seems to me that, unless we have a much clearer idea of what its finite functions will be and how they will be conducted, we shall be dribbling along accepting increases in membership because we can think of no more suitable way of conducting our affairs than to assume that more means better. I do not say that more

means worse, but I say that the idea of more has to be considered rather more objectively than has been the case hitherto.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Of course it is necessary to give effect in domestic law to the Council's decision of 1 February, but I realise why the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland raised that issue on clause stand part. I entirely sympathise with him and I hope that he will not think me satirical when I say that that was his way of bringing up the subject of the absence of proportional representation in the system. His failure to bring his amendments into order meant that he had to raise the issue in that roundabout way.
The Council's decisions could not be put into effect, and we could not increase the number of seats, without changing the 1978 Act that governs our representation. The clause and the Bill as a whole demonstrate how that should be done, in terms of distributing the extra seats between the four countries that make up the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was teetering on the edge—indeed, I think that he teetered over it—of suggesting that it would be possible to drop the clause from the Bill and to meet the Council's requirement that all the countries in the Community should have adopted the appropriate number of additional seats that they had been awarded, without any of them being prevented from being able to fill those seats at the 1994 election.
However, it is clear from the latter part of the Council's decision—I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a copy of it with him—that, if we do not include the clause, we shall not be able to take up the six extra seats, and nor will any of the other countries in Europe be able to take up theirs, unless we produce other legislation in double quick time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would prefer us to produce other legislation that would award the seats differently within the United Kingdom and introduce a different method of voting. It is for the House to decide which it should choose.

Mr. Beith: Why does the Minister say that that would have to be done in what he calls double quick time, given that such legislation would not require the same apparatus as is required by the Bill in its present form?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall risk straying out of order if I talk about a form of voting different from that provided for in the Bill, but if we produced another Bill, introducing proportional representation, no doubt even more hon. Members would complain about the type of election being adopted. Such a measure would be no easier to get through the House than the present Bill, and there would have to be an enormous amount of consultation beforehand on the appropriate form of proportional representation.
There is no easy alternative to the method that we have chosen. It is in line with our traditions and—I regret to say—it will not pre-empt the argument on future elections, but we shall have those arguments after the Council of Ministers has considered the De Gucht report. The Council has not yet done that, so there is no obligation upon us to interpolate the report into our system of electing European Members of Parliament.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his candid admission, with which I do not


disagree, that there could be another way of doing things. It appears that the only argument is about time, yet he will recall that, when the House legislated in such a manner before, it agreed to introduce a form of proportional representation for Northern Ireland. Things were done with at least as much celerity in 1978 as would be required now, and it has to be said that it was rather more complicated to set up such an arrangement for the first time. Even under the timetable now proposed, the process is unlikely to be concluded before the end of the year at the earliest. It would be a remarkable consultation on the system of voting which could not be concluded in a much shorter period than that.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman refers to the previous time that we dealt with such an arrangement, when we had at least twice as long to make the arrangements that we have now. Of course he is right to say that we could have adopted a different system of distributing the seats and of organising the elections. The form that the Government have chosen to present to the House in the Bill is the form that I think is most likely to command the most widespread support.
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would not agree with me. They believe in a different system, but on that matter they are in a minority.

Mr. Rathbone: In answer to an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the House, or perhaps the Committee, would decide what the method of election would be. May I ask him to clarify at what point in the consideration of the Bill that decision will take place? Is it taking place at this very moment, or will it take place on clause 2, or on the schedule?

Mr. Lloyd: I did not mean that the decision would be taken on the Bill. When I said that the House would return to the issue, I did not intend that to apply to the 1994 elections, but afterwards, when the Council had considered the De Gucht proposals, as it no doubt will. I am sure that the House will return to the subject, but not in the Bill, and not yet.
I shall refer briefly to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said. He made a point that we shall have to bear in mind when we revisit such matters, especially when the Community expands. It is undoubtedly a characteristic of legislatures to accrete members. The House of Commons has done so over the years and it is inevitable that there should be pressures for legislatures to do so, especially with the Community assemblies, when new members are joining. However, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, in terms of cost, of management and of effectiveness, the question of how large legislatures—the European Assembly and, indeed, the House of Commons—should be, must be tackled at some point.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I wonder whether clause I should stand part of the Bill. That is not because I believe that proportional representation is the answer. I believe that proportional representation would be an undemocratic disaster. But I wonder whether we should enlarge what is in essence not a legislature but a consultative assembly. I speak with some experience, because for five years I was an elected member of that

bickering body. I was grateful to be elected. The European Parliament is one of the best Government job creation schemes that has ever been devised for defeated Members of Parliament. So I do not quibble about the availability of seats when resting between general elections.
However, the fact that I put all that behind me and preferred to return to the United Kingdom Parliament is an indication of the great importance that I attach to the House of Commons and the low importance that I attach to the EC Assembly, which meets in Strasbourg and Brussels and has its offices in Luxembourg. It is worth bearing that in mind. Life in the EC is such that there is simply not the demand among the ordinary people for the extra MEPs proposed in clause 1.
The amount of correspondence that MEPs receive is but a tiny fraction of that received by Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, even though MEPs have constituencies of more than 500,000 people in Britain. Indeed, they are so large as to be completely amorphous. MEPs do not have any recognition among the vast majority of their constituents.
It is also worth noting that, in the Strasbourg Assembly, the United Kingdom is the only member state in which the MEPs have a constituency and some recognisable connection with the people who elected them. In that sense, the United Kingdom representatives are unique. The contempt with which representatives from other member states regard the quaint notion that United Kingdom representatives have some connection with a group of people in the country from which they come is telling.
All the other representatives are chosen by some form of proportional representation which involves the central bodies—the apparatchiks of the parties—choosing the representatives. There is no direct constituency involvement.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) argued that clause I should not stand part of the Bill, because he wanted a circuitous route to the introduction of proportional representation to be adopted. I am hotly opposed to that.

Mr. Beith: I intervene not so much on the issue of proportional representation as on the point about what the additional MEPs would do. Did not the hon. Gentleman find it odd when he was an MEP that the representation of the two British party groups was so distorted? On his point about the role of the United Kingdom MEPs, surely he recognises that there are two categories. There are those in England, Scotland and Wales, who, with the best will in the world, cannot be expected to identify with the electorate in their huge European constituencies in the same way as the hon. Gentleman does with the electorate in his smaller constituency. Then the three Northern Ireland MEPs are elected on a different system. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Northern Ireland Members are not representatives of the community there?

Mr. Cryer: For those who are elected by the first-past-the-post system, there is a much clearer and more recognisable relationship with the electorate. I include the people of Northern Ireland in that. The amorphous system of choosing people is one of award of favours by the political parties.
After the election, apparently there is a whole lot of new faces in the Assembly. That is brought about not by changes in the electoral decisions, but by the political party to which the Members belong simply switching them on the lists to which they were appointed to exclude them from the Assembly.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Beith: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The preceding debates came to an end after my constituency had been mentioned. I sought to take part in that debate, but I was prevented from doing so by the moving of the closure motion. There have been only three or four speeches so far in this debate and I still have not been permitted on clause stand part to make the point about the part of the Bill that relates to my constituency and which was raised in the preceding debate.
I plead with you, Mr. Lofthouse, after all our experiences during the Maastricht debates, to recognise that it is only reasonable that hon. Members should have a fair opportunity to take part in the debate in Committee.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I take the view that there has been a wide-ranging debate on clause stand part. The matter has been reasonably covered during the debate.

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. It would have been out of order in the preceding debate to discuss matters relating to England, which I could not have raised even if I had been allowed to make a short speech.

The First Deputy Chairman: I have explained my decision and that is where the matter stands.

The House having divided: Ayes 238, Noes 41.

Division No. 319]
[8.44 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Aitken, Jonathan
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butler, Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coe, Sebastian


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Bates, Michael
Congdon, David


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Booth, Hartley
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Patrick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Couchman, James


Bowis, John
Cran, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Brandreth, Gyles
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bright, Graham
Day, Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Devlin, Tim


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dorrell, Stephen


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Budgen, Nicholas
Dover, Den





Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Luff, Peter


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Eggar, Tim
MacKay, Andrew


Elletson, Harold
Maclean, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Madel, David


Evennett, David
Maitland, Lady Olga


Faber, David
Malone, Gerald


Fabricant, Michael
Mans, Keith


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marland, Paul


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marlow, Tony


Forman, Nigel
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mates, Michael


Forth, Eric
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Merchant, Piers


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Milligan, Stephen


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mills, Iain


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gallie, Phil
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardiner, Sir George
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Moss, Malcolm


Garnier, Edward
Needham, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gorst, John
Norris, Steve


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Page, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Paice, James


Hague, William
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Pickles, Eric


Hampson, Dr Keith
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hanley, Jeremy
Powell, William (Corby)


Hannam, Sir John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Harris, David
Richards, Rod


Haselhurst, Alan
Riddick, Graham


Hayes, Jerry
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hendry, Charles
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hicks, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Horam, John
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (North
Shaw, David (Dover)


Norfolk)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunter, Andrew
Shersby, Michael


Jack, Michael
Sims, Roger


Jenkin, Bernard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jessel, Toby
Soames, Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Spink, Dr Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Spring, Richard


Key, Robert
Sproat, Iain


Kilfedder, Sir James
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Steen, Anthony


Knapman, Roger
Stephen, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Stewart, Allan


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Streeter, Gary


Knox, Sir David
Sweeney, Walter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sykes, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Thomason, Roy


Legg, Barry
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lidington, David
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)






Trend, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Trotter, Neville
Widdecombe, Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Walden, George
Willetts, David


Waller, Gary
Wilshire, David


Ward, John
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Waterson, Nigel



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Irvine Patnick.




NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Mahon, Alice


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Barnes, Harry
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Beggs, Roy
Morley, Elliot


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Mullin, Chris


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Primarolo, Dawn


Callaghan, Jim
Rendel, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Salmond, Alex


Corston, Ms Jean
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Spearing, Nigel


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harvey, Nick
Trimble, David


Hood, Jimmy
Welsh, Andrew


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wilson, Brian


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Wise, Audrey


Lewis, Terry



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


Lynne, Ms Liz
Mr. James Wallace and


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Maginnis, Ken

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 245, Noes 31.

Division No. 320]
[8.55 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butcher, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clappison, James


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Congdon, David


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Bates, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Beggs, Roy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cormack, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cran, James


Booth, Hartley
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowis, John
Day, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Devlin, Tim


Brandreth, Gyles
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bright, Graham
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dunn, Bob


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Burns, Simon
Elletson, Harold


Burt, Alistair
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)





Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Malone, Gerald


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mans, Keith


Evennett, David
Marland, Paul


Faber, David
Marlow, Tony


Fabricant, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Merchant, Piers


Forman, Nigel
Milligan, Stephen


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Forth, Eric
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Monro, Sir Hector


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Moss, Malcolm


French, Douglas
Needham, Richard


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gallie, Phil
Nicholls, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Garnier, Edward
Norris, Steve


Gillan, Cheryl
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gorst, John
Page, Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Paice, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Pickles, Eric


Hague, William
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Hanley, Jeremy
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Harris, David
Richards, Rod


Haselhurst, Alan
Riddick, Graham


Hayes, Jerry
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hendry, Charles
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hicks, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Horam, John
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N. Norfolk)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunter, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jack, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shersby, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Sims, Roger


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Soames, Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Spencer, Sir Derek


Key, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Spink, Dr Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spring, Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sproat, Iain


Knapman, Roger
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Steen, Anthony


Knox, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stewart, Allan


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Streeter, Gary


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sweeney, Walter


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sykes, John


Legg, Barry
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Lidington, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lightbown, David
Thomason, Roy


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Luff, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


MacKay, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Maclean, David
Trimble, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Madel, David
Walden, George


Maginnis, Ken
Waller, Gary






Ward, John
Willetts, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wilshire, David


Waterson, Nigel
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Wiggin, Sir Jerry





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Maclennan, Robert


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Mahon, Alice


Barnes, Harry
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Rendel, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Salmond, Alex


Callaghan, Jim
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Galloway, George
Tyler, Paul


Gordon, Mildred
Wallace, James


Harvey, Nick
Welsh, Andrew


Hood, Jimmy
Wray, Jimmy


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)



Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Don Foster and


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Lynne, Ms Liz

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I wish to speak to that motion.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am not prepared to accept that motion at this point. We move on to—

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I wonder whether you could draw my attention to the provision in "Erskine May" that restricts my right to move progress, so that I may be sure that you are not in some way confining that right to those on the Government Front Bench, who seem to be calling the shots.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Standing Order gives the occupant of the Chair discretion, and I am exercising that discretion. We now come to clause 2.

Clause 2

INITIAL DRAWING UP OF THE NEW CONSTITUENCIES

The First Deputy Chairman: The first amendment is amendment No. 15, with which it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 18 and 22.

Mr. Maclennan: Not moved.

The First Deputy Chairman: In that case, we come to amendment No. 19, with which it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 20 and 26 to 30.

Mr. Maclennan: Not moved.

The First Deputy Chairman: We now come to amendment No. 23.

The Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight): rose—

Hon. Members: No!

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. [Interruption.] Order. Will the House settle down?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I want to hear the point of order.

Mr. Beith: I put it to you, Mr. Lofthouse, that, given that some 15 seconds ago you argued that you could not use your discretion to accept from me a motion to report progress, it would be unacceptable if you now accepted such a motion from the Government Front Bench.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before I deal with that, may I remind the House that amendment No. 23 is an Opposition amendment? Is it not moved?

Several hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hold it. I am the Chairman running this show at present. Hold it.
Let me clarify this matter. Amendment No. 23 stood in the name of the official Opposition. Has it been moved?

Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Before that amendment was reached, I sought to catch your eye.
I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The First Deputy Chairman: The question is, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The motion is debatable. Hon. Members who wish to do so will have the opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Before we come to the motion—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The motion is that I report progress. As many of that opinion say "Aye"—

Mr. Beith: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to speak on the motion?

Mr. Beith: I wish to oppose the motion, because I do not understand the situation. I moved a motion to report progress about a minute or so ago. At that point, you said that, in your discretion, you did not think that it was reasonable to take such a motion at that stage. A matter of seconds later, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), sought to move an identical motion, despite my having shown my concern by way of a point of order.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I point out that, since the right hon. Gentleman moved the motion, a number of clauses have been passed, mainly on the nod.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. William Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it not the case that you put the motion that we report progress? There was a voice vote and the Ayes shouted, "Aye" and the Noes shouted, "No."

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Chair had not finished collecting the voices.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) seems to be unaware of what happened in those few seconds: no clauses were passed, no amendments were passed, no amendments were withdrawn and no amendments were moved. No amendments were before the Committee during that period.
That further underlines my point that, in the space of seconds after my moving a motion to report progress, nothing happened at all. Nothing happened to change the circumstances in which you, Mr. Lofthouse, should consider whether to accept a motion to report progress. Yet seconds later, your discretion was somehow influenced by the fact that—I am trying to find the right phrase. The circumstances in which you exercised your discretion seemed to you to have changed, even though procedurally nothing whatever had happened in the intervening period. It seems to us that what is at stake—you may be unaware of what has gone on—is a cosy deal between the Labour party and the Conservative party.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to question your judgment, because that is exactly what he is doing? [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The House will settle down. I am listening carefully to what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is saying. I do not take it that he is questioning my authority at all.

Mr. Beith: I sought in some way to separate my questions of advice about the circumstances in which the Chairman of the Committee can and cannot accept a motion to report progress by dealing with them by way of a point of order.
I am now coming to my speech against the motion. In passing, it would be helpful if Back-Bench Members could be given a clearer understanding of what transpired in the seconds between my moving the motion and the Government Whip moving the motion which turned the situation—obviously the situation was turned, and I do not question that—from one in which it would have been wrong for you to accept the motion to one in which it was right for you to accept it. Obviously, you are well aware of the circumstances and you were being advised in some detail by the Clerk of the Committee as to what the change signified. Undoubtedly, he has given you extensive reasons for it.
It would be helpful for the future if at some stage, you could respond by giving us some guidance on that point. However, that is not the substance of what I want to say in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that we should oppose the Government's motion to report progress. It is extremely fortunate that the Labour party did not move its amendment, because virtually no Opposition Members are here to speak to it.
Did the right hon. Member note the extraordinary exchange of desperate glances between those on the two Front Benches as they panicked and started to realise that their cosy arrangement was starting to go awry? Should our proceedings be dominated by such secret backstage deals between the Tory and Labour parties?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right. I, too, saw those exchange of glances. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) looked distinctly concerned about what was going on. You know nothing of this, Mr. Lofthouse. I am bringing to your attention matters with which you do not concern yourself.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that I know nothing of any deals.

Mr. Beith: I am seeking to underline that point. All the more reason, Mr. Lofthouse, why the House should understand what has happened. The Government have offered us no reason for their decision to move a motion that they would have resisted had my attempt to move the same motion a few seconds earlier been accepted. What a place this is. I sought to move a motion and a minute later, the Government, who would have voted against my motion if it had been put to the vote, moved the exact same motion themselves. I know why they did that.

Mr. Wallace: I was just finishing my meal when I saw various details appear on the Annunciator. Can my right hon. Friend explain how the Chairman could refuse to accept his motion to report progress and, within one minute, accept from the Government the motion to report progress?

Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I might be able to assist the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the decision to accept a motion is a matter for the Chairman's discretion. Things altered somewhat between the moving of the motions. Two sets of amendments that were expected to be put were not moved. That is what changed between when the first and second motions to report progress were moved. The person in charge of the proceedings also has the right to move the motion, which he did. The other amendments were not moved, so I accepted that motion. I hope that that is helpful to the right hon. Gentleman and means that he will not have to speak for as long as he had anticipated.

Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I am anxious to get this absolutely clear in my mind, because important precedents could be established concerning Committee Chairmen being under pressure from different parts of a Committee, at different stages of a Bill. It seems to me that you have just set a precedent, Mr. Lofthouse, because, after no time at all in terms of procedural progress made, you were prepared to accept a motion from the Government, when you were not willing to accept a motion—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already explained that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must return to the motion before the Committee.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Am I not owed an apology from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), because the point that I raised with him was precisely the one that you have given as your reason for granting the second request that the House should report progress? He told me that I did not know what was going on.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to speak to the motion before the Committee.

Mr. Beith: You were helping my argument, Mr. Lofthouse, when you set out what you understood to be the circumstances that had changed, procedurally. I say that to help the hon. Member for Lancaster. Procedurally, nothing had happened. Nothing had been passed, nothing had been withdrawn.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Yes, it had.

Mr. Beith: Nothing had been withdrawn. Some amendments were not moved, and, therefore, they were of no procedural consequence to the affairs of the Committee. In that sense, nothing had happened.
Your explanation, Mr. Lofthouse, helps me to explain to the House why the Government moved the motion. They found that they could not honour their deal with the Labour party without putting a motion to move progress. The nature of the deal was confirmed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who said, "Well done" in a loud voice when the Government moved the motion.
The deal was that all amendments would be disposed of tonight, up to the amendment which you, Mr. Lofthouse, invited the Labour Front Bench to move. The basis of that deal was how nice it would be for the Labour party to move their amendment early in the afternoon rather than late at night. Such are the understandings between the Conservative and Labour parties that motions are made for personal convenience and the timing of amendments, which is why we are being asked to make no further progress on the Bill tonight.
You, Mr. Lofthouse, saw what happened. In exercising your role as Chairman with as much care as you could muster, you sought to remind Opposition Front-Bench Members that if they did not move their amendment quickly it would fall. The only thing that saved it from collapsing was the fact that the Government moved a motion to report progress. That is why I am so critical of the motion and it explains the difference in the attitude to the motion that I sought to put and that put by the Minister.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Liberal Democrats did not move their two groups of amendments?

Mr. Beith: Yes, there are two reasons. First, we are not party to that deal. We see no reason why we should organise the affairs of the House to suit the Con-Lab pact

that runs this place. To fit in with their deal, they wanted us to speak on those amendments to ensure that the Committee would not start debating Labour's amendment when you, Mr. Lofthouse, invited the Labour Front Bench to move it. That was contrary to the plan agreed by the two parties.

Mr. Riddick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: No, I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question.
When we did not move our amendment, Conservative and Labour Members were at sixes and sevens and did not know what to do.
I now come to the crucial point. If you, Mr. Lofthouse, had accepted my motion to report progress and we had debated and then disposed of that motion, you might have had difficulty in inviting the Committee to accept another identical motion a few moments later, reversing the effect of the decision that you had already taken. That would not
I see that the Government Whip is fidgeting on the corner of his seat again. Perhaps he should take the tablets so often recommended by his right hon. Friends. He clearly wants to move a closure motion before I have even started my speech, most of which has been taken up dealing with interventions and points of order raised by Conservative Members. He has already stopped me speaking in the first debate this evening after someone said that my constituency should be included in the amendments to clause 1 because, in his view, it formed part of Scotland. He then prevented me from dealing with that argument in the debate on clause stand part.
A point that I wished to make on clause stand part concerned an issue on which I wanted to seek wider consultation. There was a case for saying that an understanding could have been reached enabling a seat to be created on both sides of the border around Berwick. However, that would have required an amendment in another place, so I could not develop that argument. I thought that it would be appropriate at that stage to seek leave to report progress to enable me to consult on the matter.
However, I then discovered that behind all that was a deal to cover the whole matter up. It is a mini-deal within a maxi-deal. The maxi-deal is that Labour delivers the Bill for the Government. You, Mr. Lofthouse, have much experience of Committee proceedings on the Maastricht treaty Bill and served many long hours in the Chair during those debates. Labour Members were constantly trying to explain during those proceedings how vigorously they were opposing the Government on motions such as this.

Mr. Don Dixon: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is an honourable man who always preaches the truth. Will he now admit that the truth about the shenanigans this evening has more to do with the vacant seat at Christchurch than with the additional seats in Europe? He may talk of deals, but I suggest that he casts his mind back only a couple of months to the time when, on eight occasions, the Liberals voted with the Government and got the Maastricht Bill through.

Mr. Beith: You would probably rule me out of order, Mr. Lofthouse, if I started talking about the Christchurch by-election.

Mr. Dixon: Answer my question.

Mr. Beith: I am doing that. Having asked me a question, the hon. Gentleman might have the decency to listen to the answer. In any event, he must have missed many of our proceedings—

Mr. Dixon: How about an answer?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman pressed me to give him a truthful answer. I am seeking to do that. Will he just listen while I answer him? He put it to me that this is all about the Christchurch by-election, yet, throughout the earlier proceedings, we were accused—and the Minister made the same accusation—of debating matters—[Interruption.] We are concerned that the Government are using an unfair system of election to the European Parliament.
We plead guilty to the accusation of wanting to change the system. But that is not what the motion is about. I am seeking to answer an intervention from as prominent a source as a Labour Front-Bench spokesman. It was a significant intervention, because I was at the time drawing a comparison between this motion and arguments against it in relation to this Bill and the way in which similar motions were dealt with when we debated the Maastricht Bill.
The hon. Member for Jarrow said that we had voted with the Government. Yes, but we were in favour of getting the Maastricht Bill through. It was our policy to do that, which is why we voted for it. We voted for motions which ensured that it would get through. Apart from the hon. Member for Jarrow and those sitting below the Gangway, Labour Members were in favour of that Bill getting through, so they said, even though they were not prepared to support, or vote for, any procedural motions. It is clear that the mask, the disguise, has slipped. The hon. Member for Jarrow is a closet opponent of Maastricht on the Labour Front Bench.
But that is not the issue before us tonight. The issue is whether the Government should be allowed to use a motion to report progress to stitch up a deal with the Labour party about the handling of the measure. Should hon. Members vote for the motion in the knowledge that that is so? I am explaining that it is so because I fear that there are hon. Members in many parts of the Committee who do not know what lies behind the motion.

Mr. Salmond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the risk of creating two separate types of hon. Members? There are those who, when they have amendments down in their names, must turn up in time to move them. There are others, such as those on the Labour Front Bench, who, if they are not here to move their amendments, can depend on the occupants of the Government Front Bench to come to their rescue and get them out of difficulty.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman raises a significant point—[Interruption.] I gather that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is now ready to move the amendment. I hope that the Committee is aware of that because, Mr. Lofthouse, when you looked around for him some time ago, he was not prepared to move the amendment. The Government are inviting us to vote for the motion because they want to rescue the Labour party. They want to get Labour Members off the hook of their embarrassment.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is now

willing to move the amendment, do you think that the sitting should be suspended, as often happens with Committees, so that the two Front Benches can get together and concoct another deal?

Mr. Beith: I am having difficulty in making—[Interruption]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am having difficulty hearing the right hon. Gentleman. Will hon. Members please give the right hon. Gentleman a fair hearing?

Mr. Beith: There is such zeal on both sides of the Committee and many little private discussions are taking place, like the one taking place between the Minister and the Clerk inside the Chamber. The Minister has taken the Clerk's seat—I think that the Minister wants to be the Clerk.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am in the Chair, and I am running the debate, not Ministers or Clerks. I make the decisions and I have responsibility for the Chair.

Mr. Beith: Of course, Mr. Lofthouse. I think that, in response to that very proper assurance of your authority, the Minister has left the Clerk's chair and has ceased to give the impression that he was trying to influence your decision. I know that he could not do so. You act strictly within the rules of procedure. You act simply to implement rules which, in some ways, give many advantages to Ministers and, when used by Ministers, can advantage the Labour party. There is not a lot that you can do about that.
We in the minority parties and Back Benchers often ask you to use your discretion to give a fair hearing, but you have to implement the rules of the House, which you do. Who am I to question that?
My task is different. It is to persuade hon. Members that they should vote against the motion because it is wrong—

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Beith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I quite like giving way, but, unfortunately, hon. Members keep diverting me to speak on subjects of which you. Mr. Lofthouse, would disapprove, as they go wider than the terms of the motion.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Beith: I shall give way, reluctantly, to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Riddick: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that the reason the Liberal Democrats are so opposed to deals—as he puts it—is because the last time the Liberals made a deal, in the form of the Lib-Lab pact, it was a total disaster for them? Will he answer an earlier question? Why did the Liberals table amendments which they were not prepared to move?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. He has drawn me into speaking about the Lib-Lab pact, with which he compares the Con-Lab pact before us tonight. He told us that there is a deal between the other


two parties, which should be compared to the Lib-Lab pact. He approves of today's deal, but disapproved of the Lib-Lab pact. I should not start discussing that subject.
Tonight, we must consider whether it is sensible for hon. Members to vote for a motion to report progress on the basis that would stitch up a deal. Another of my fears is that, every time I give way to another hon. Member, I strengthen the argument that might be used by the Minister—who keeps scurrying around the Government Whip—to move the closure motion in the middle of my speech, as he did in the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Such a procedure is not conducive to sensible debate in the House.

Mr. Allen: It may be that some hon. Members in the Chamber are trying to teach the Chair a lesson on not calling amendments on proportional representation. The Chair may wish to take into account in future the fact that such behaviour may be replicated. I hope that the Chair does not bend to such pressure. It is clear that some hon. Members are happy to disturb the debate purely because their amendments have not been selected.

The First Deputy Chairman: Was that a point of order or an intervention?

Mr. Beith: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, but should not have done so. I think that he is after your job, Mr. Lofthouse. I think that he is trying to argue the Chairman's case, when he has already stitched up a deal with the Government.
There is another important aspect to discuss. A rumour was circulating earlier today that the Government did not want to reach clause 2 tonight because they had an amendment which they would have to table today and which would have been starred tomorrow.

Mr. Allen: It is not a rumour.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman, who knows all about what the Government are doing, says that it was not a rumour. He must know that it is the truth—now I have the evidence. What better source could I have than an hon. Member who is clearly very close to all this?
The Government plan to move an amendment that they could not have moved if we had made too much progress tonight. They resiled from the plan, leaving it open for them to move the motion to report progress. It occurred to them that if the amendment were carried, we should have a Report stage, at which other aspects of the Bill would be open to question and debate.
I assume that what we are to learn from this is that the Bill is defective and that any Government amendment will be made in another place. So far, we have not been told so, though we ought to have been. If we are to consider procedural motions, we ought to know the Government's intentions.
The broad deal that this motion is intended to implement is, first, that the Labour party will not impede progress on the Bill and, secondly, the continued use of the present electoral system for the extra seats, so long as the Government have their amendments considered at times of day that suit.
That being the case, the Government could not let you, Mr. Lofthouse, invite the Opposition Front Bench to move the amendment. When you started to do so, they were very worried. When you began to issue this helpful

invitation to Labour Front Benchers, the Minister started to jump up and down in an effort to move a motion that he would not have accepted when I moved it.
The overall deal is that Labour will deliver the goods. What is the concession? What is the basis on which Labour Members are being asked to vote for this motion? What is the basis on which the hon. Member for Bradford, South is being told that he must troop through the Lobby with the Tories and on which the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—

Mr. Cryer: Whatever circumstances the hon. Gentleman is conjecturing, I shall make up my own mind. I hope to have an opportunity to speak on the motion, in which case I shall express my view that we ought to vote against it. I shall certainly vote in that way.

Mr. Beith: In my heart of hearts, I knew that it was so. I knew that the hon. Gentleman would not be pushed around by the Whips. And I should be surprised if the hon. Members for Worsley and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were prepared to be treated in that way.

Mr. Terry Lewis: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as always, I shall be in the Lobby in defence of democracy in this place. Before he goes too far along this route, let me tell him that it is not long since I watched him and his colleagues do very similar deals. The Labour Members on the Front Bench below the Gangway can say, hand on heart, that they do deals with nobody.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point, and I did not seek to suggest otherwise. We did not have deals; we simply voted for what we believed to be right, as the hon. Gentleman is contemplating doing in respect of this motion. I am very pleased that he is prepared to oppose the motion, on the basis of some of the arguments that I have advanced. It is decent and honourable that there are still Members of Parliament—people with whom I may disagree fundamentally with regard to the issue in the Bill—who care about fair procedures, about how we conduct our business. On such issues, we can make common cause.

Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend will have noted the indication from the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) that Labour accepts that there has been a deal, just as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)—a Conservative—did a few moments ago. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is always talking about open government. Why is he not honest enough to accept that there has been a deal between the two Front Benches?

Mr. Beith: Nobody is now denying it. You, Mr. Lofthouse, might have been the last to be told about the deal, but you have now heard, from various corners of the Committee, plenty of evidence of it. The question is whether the deal, in the form of the motion to report progress, should be accepted.
I have been seeking to address the argument that Labour Members should support the deal, which is: "Chaps, comrades"—I cannot find any comrades—"we shall get our amendment on at 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon if we let the Government have this Bill." That is a pretty shabby basis for voting for any motion, even one to report progress. It is certainly a shabby basis for


supporting every dot and tittle of the Bill, with all the faults that some Labour Members—conspicuous by their absence—know full well.
There are quite a few Labour Members who would make common cause with us. Indeed, later in the year they may find that their party conference decides in favour of a different electoral system for the European elections.
Perhaps there is another reason for the Government moving the motion to report progress. Is it possible that it is to give the Labour party time to consult its party conference before tomorrow? I cannot see how it can do that, but perhaps it wants to consult its national executive on whether Labour Members should vote for any of the amendments or for the schedule, an issue which we shall deal with tomorrow. Of course, we could have dealt with it tonight. My hon. Friends conspicuously co-operated in making it possible to reach Labour's amendment, clause 2 stand part and the schedule. We could still achieve that if we do not agree to the motion to report progress.
Throughout the proceedings on the Maastricht Bill, the Government constantly came to us and said, "We must make progress on the Bill." Some nights we said, "No, there are important issues still to be considered so we will not vote for the 10 o'clock motion. Why should we sit after 10 o'clock, night after night, on a Bill that we could consider in a more orderly fashion?" Now, the Government Whip—who has recently been promoted up the hierarchy—says that we must report progress on this Bill, not to suit the Government, but to keep the Labour party happy.
Conservative Members will shortly be invited to go through the Lobby in favour of a motion to report progress. We should remember all those occasions on the Maastricht Bill when considerable pressure was put on Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—my colleague on the Treasury Select Committee—to vote for very different sorts of motions.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: There will be a great deal of distaste throughout the Committee for the contempt that the right hon. Gentleman shows for the Government and Opposition Front Benches. One of the most conspicuous features of the past six months has been the courageous way in which the two Front Benches together fought the remainder of the House to get the Maastricht Bill through its stages.
All of us who so dislike the adversarial element in politics and admire the consensus and conformism that have been the most outstanding tribute to the two Front Benches very much resent the vulgar contempt that he shows for those hon. Members who have so stalwartly stood against public opinion, denied the nation a referendum and, above all, have tried to make themselves respectable and agreeable, especially to the London chattering classes.
I am sure that those who supported all that was responsible and respectable in the old Liberal party regard the right hon. Gentleman's rather impertinent remarks with nothing more than contempt.

Mr. Beith: As Ministers so often say, "The hon. Gentleman makes his own point in his own way." He is right in one aspect, if not all, of what he says, which is that that was exactly the case on the referendum—

Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The Government Whip and the Opposition Whip have left the Chamber to consult. I wonder whether—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Beith: Oh, Mr. Lofthouse, how difficult my task becomes when extraneous activities flourish, when toings and froings—[Interruption.] The Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Jarrow has returned to the Chamber bursting with some new truth that he wants to impart—not to me; not to you, Mr. Lofthouse; not to the Committee; but to the Clerks. Perhaps he is offering to do the Minister's difficult job and move the closure—

Mr. Dixon: rose—

Mr. Beith: I shall give way provided that the hon. Gentleman does not move a closure motion.

Mr. Dixon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no intentions at all.

Mr. Beith: I always believed that, from the moment that he became a Whip, the hon. Member for Jarrow had no intentions at all. It is clear to me from everything that he does in his activities as a Whip—I am sure that some of his hon. Friends, if they were here, would support me—that he has no intentions at all; he just has duties. He has the duty of compelling people to come into the House; the duty of keeping them out of the House, as now, when they are not wanted. He has no intentions; merely obligations.

Mr. Dixon: The right hon. Gentleman asked me if I was going to move the closure. I said that I had no intention at all of moving the closure. That is fairly simple, and I should have thought that even he could understand that.

Mr. Beith: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he chose not to complete his sentence. Had he done so, I would have understood. That felicitous phrase, which seemed to me to describe so vividly the characteristics that make him such a well-known and recognised individual, summed it all up. But, of course, he meant to say something else—that he was not going to move the closure —and I accept that. He was distracting me, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is also trying to do, from what I was seeking to argue.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North is now apologising. He says that he is, sorry that he got the Committee into this mess; he is sorry that he did a deal with the Government under which Labour would deliver the Bill so long as they got the procedural motion and could get his amendment on at 4 o'clock tomorrow.

Mr. Allen: In case there is any misunderstanding, I was making it clear that I was sorry for the right hon. Gentleman, rather than for anything that had happened.

Mr. Beith: I can do without the sympathy of the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it would do me a lot of good.

Mr. Oliver Heald: rose—

Mr. Beith: I do not know whether I should give way to so many interventions, because it might count against me at some later stage, and I am seeking to develop an argument. But I will give way this time.

Mr. Heald: Did the right hon. Gentleman forget to move the amendment? Is that the reason why we are being treated now to this lengthy speech? If that is the case, is it right that he has lost his party six hours of debate?

Mr. Beith: I do not think that we would have got six hours of debate. On the last clause stand part, we got only one hour. Of course we did not forget. The hon. Member could not have been in the Chamber at the time, or he would have seen my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rise and say, "Not moved." That was the appropriate step to take when we did not wish the matter to come before the Committee. We thought that it would be a good idea to get on to Labour's amendment. Then we suddenly discovered that Labour did not want to get on to their own amendment.
But all this is distracting me from the structure and order of my remarks, and from coming on to the arguments which are directed at Conservative Members as they are invited to vote for this motion. They are being told that this has to be done to keep the Labour party happy.
So when hon. Members go back to their Conservative dinners, their buffet suppers and their women's committee lunches, they will be able to say that they did their bit for the Prime Minister and the Government. They will be asked what they did for their nation and their party, and they will reply that they looked after the Labour party, which was what they were sent here for. They will be asked why that was necessary.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who is one of the most candid Members, will tell his ladies committee that he will explain it to them, although it will be difficult to understand because the proceedings of the House are sometimes strange. He will say that his friends the Whips, with whom he always seeks to work closely because they give such stalwart support to the Prime Minister, agreed with the Labour party that it would be expedient for their amendment to come on at 4 o'clock on Wednesday.
The ladies committee will ask why it was important, and the hon. Gentleman will reply that he does not know, but the Whips told him that it was. Then the ladies will ask why it is that something that is important to the Labour party's organisation of its day-to-day business matters so much to the Prime Minister and other Front-Bench Ministers.

Mr. Budgen: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stop this impertinence. It must be clear to the whole Committee that Opposition Front Benchers have been the most loyal supporters of the Conservative Administration over the Maastricht treaty. It really is most impertinent of the right hon. Gentleman to be rude about it. A very small obligation is being paid now for loyal support over a long period.

Mr. Beith: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's explanation would pass the auditors. I think he has got the balance sheet confused, which is unusual for him, because he is a member of our Treasury Select Committee.
The hon. Gentleman is fundamentally right—a small obligation is being repaid—but I think that the obligation arises in relation to this Bill, and that is why he and his hon. Friends are being asked to vote for this motion. He thinks it is an obligation in respect of the Maastricht Bill—that is the nub of the disagreement between us—but that should not affect the attitude he should take to this motion.
The arguments are the same either way. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about Maastricht; I do not think that the Labour party was very good at getting the Maastricht Bill through. Labour Members were very good at defeating the referendum proposal and ensuring that the British people did not have a vote on the issue, but they were not so good on procedural motions. They are relying on that rather than on this motion. The reason I raise it for comparison is that they blocked all the procedural motions but did not vote for the Labour amendments. They did not vote on most of their amendments.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would get back to the motion and leave Maastricht out of it.

Mr. Beith: Let us agree about this motion. It is the repayment of a debt of obligation. The Government Whips are obligated to the Labour party for their great kindness. I believe that it is a kindness in getting the European Parliamentary Elections Bill through the House; the hon. Gentleman believes it is a kindness over the Maastricht Bill. Either way, the Government are obligated.
Conservative Members will now have to go to their ladies committees, luncheon clubs and supper clubs, and, heaven forfend, possibly their Conservative clubs, where the argument may be even more robust than in the ladies' committee, and be expressed in more uncouth terms on occasion. They will have to say, as they gather around the bar of the Conservative club, "It is all right, fellow club members, we have been in there helping the Labour party out by moving a motion that the House do report progress."
The Conservative club will not be like the ladies' committee; they will not say, "Oh, Mr. Budgen, why did you do it?" They will say, "Come off it." They may use expressions that I would not use at all, let alone in the Chamber. They will say, "Are you telling me that we subscribe in our club to put money into local Conservative funds, to send you to Westminster to prop up the Labour party? You are not telling us that, are you?" But that is what Conservative Members will have to tell them; they will have to explain that that is how the whole show is run. The hon. Gentleman can call it consensus, but that is how the whole place is run.
"Explain it to us," they will say. They may use more robust language, but they will demand to he told by the luckless, hapless Conservative Members—who should think about that before they go through the Lobby. They will have to stand in the bar of the Conservative club and say, "John Major and the Government Whips told me it was absolutely vital that Labour's amendment came on at 4 o'clock on a Wednesday. For that I will do anything; I will vote for any motion that the Government put before me." That will not be accepted for one moment. I think that Conservative Members will have to refrain from going through the Lobby in support of the motion.
Let me give Conservative Members another reason. If I had moved the motion, and had advanced arguments very different from those that the Government would have advanced had they dared, the same Government Whip would have told Conservative Members to vote the other way. I am putting that on the record because, when they go to the Conservative ladies' luncheon, they will also have to explain that. They will ask, "Is it true, Mr. Budgen? Is it really true that, when you voted for this motion to help the Labour party, you voted the opposite way from the way in which you would have voted if it had been moved 30 seconds earlier?"
The hon. Gentleman will have to say, "Yes, my dear ladies, I am afraid that it is true, because that is the way in which the politics of our country is run. We in the Conservative party have a debt of gratitude to the Labour party, and although we prefer to leave you in the mindset of constant anti-socialism, because that is how we keep the party going, you must recognise that in the real world of Westminster our obligations to the Labour party run deeper than some of our opposition to it." The Conservative ladies will find that hard to take; there may be tears in their eyes when they are confronted with the harsh truth.

Mr. William Powell: rose—

Mr. Beith: In the middle of my argument, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not suffering from tunnel vision? Surely, when our constituents ask us about such things, we are much more likely to hear the comment, "That Mr. Beith is a nice man. Why on earth was he talking all that nonsense?" The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument for the most corrupt bargain possible. We have been denied the opportunity of debating the amendments that the Liberal Democrats did not move, and which we wished them to move, so that we could expose the falsity and preposterous nature of the politics that they wish to advance. Our constituents are not impressed by what the right hon. Gentleman says, because it is all nonsense.

Mr. Beith: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman believes much of that; he certainly did not make it sound convincing. We are party to no bargain at all. We did not move a couple of our amendments, but the Minister had already made it abundantly clear beyond doubt that in no circumstances would he accept them. He was determined to ensure that our amendments were defeated, because he knows the form in which he wants the Bill to be enacted, and he has known it for ages, since before the Maastricht Bill even started. Honestly and candidly, he made that clear earlier this evening.
The idea that our amendments would have been uplifted in the arms of Conservative Members who had suddenly come into the fold with us is absurd. Even Conservative Members who agree with our amendments are being a little cautious, although I acquit the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) of that charge. He intervened helpfully and purposefully to ask the Minister when the House would be given the opportunity to decide

what would be an appropriate election system for the European Parliament. The Minister's answer, basically, was, "Not on this Bill."
Some day the House may be invited to decide, but what is before us now is a grubby deal to support the Labour party. Conservative Members now have the task of setting out from this place at the weekend and explaining to loyal Conservatives all over the country that they are here in order to help out the Labour party. That seems a wholly inappropriate reason for voting, and a wholly inappropriate way of treating the various resources and help that those loyal Conservatives have given.
Perhaps I am presuming too much about the sense of loyalty of Conservatives all over the country. It may be much less prevalent than it used to be; they may be much more restive. The knowledge that there is a Con-Lab pact, which is the basis of the motion, will not help, and that knowledge will spread further and further.
On top of some people's feeling that an even more unfair system for elections to the European Parliament is being foisted upon them, comes the discovery that the Labour party is conniving with the Conservatives to get the motion through, and that the Conservative Whips are asking their Members to support a motion in order to keep that deal going. It is a pretty shady way of proceeding, but it is the way that things have gone here tonight.

Mr. Cryer: I should like to say a word or two about the motion to move progress. I imagine that the Whips have it in mind not to move the 10 o'clock motion. The curious thing is that the Whips have foolishly moved closures tonight. The Whip earlier moved the closure when a short speech was coming to an end, and when one other Member was to speak.
The Government want to turn this legislature into some sort of sausage machine for subordinating Parliament to their wishes. That is why their motion to report progress is being debated. It has taken far longer than it would have if the Whips had sat on their hands and done nothing. The debate on the motion to report progress has taken longer than it would have taken to debate all the items before the Committee of the House tonight.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I feel embarrassed about cutting across the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). However, once again in a speech of his, one must move, That the Question be now put. We have spent longer on the debate on the motion to report progress than we spent on clause I stand part. The Government did not advance any arguments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has spoken at great length and the hon. Member for Bradford, South has spoken briefly and concisely. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am not accepting that motion.

Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I spy strangers.

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and asked leave to sit again.

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Mr. Beith: No.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. If hon. Gentlemen will listen to what I have to say, instead of all jumping up and down at once, which makes it impossible for me to decide who genuinely wants to catch my eye, I will listen to them.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard the Government Whip move the motion to report progress. I voted against the motion with my voice seeking a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Whip was simply reporting to the House what had happened in Committee.

Mr. Wallace: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand, although I will certainly stand corrected if I am wrong, that the Whip also sought leave to sit again. Will you perhaps tell us precisely what the terms were? If he sought leave to sit again, is it possible for the House to vote against the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is a normal procedure at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on that point of order.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 253.

Division No. 321]
[10.2 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Salmond, Alex


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Simpson, Alan


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wallace, James


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Welsh, Andrew


Maclennan, Robert



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Don Foster.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Rendel, David





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bellingham, Henry


Aitken, Jonathan
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Allen, Graham
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alton, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Booth, Hartley


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ashby, David
Bowden, Andrew


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowis, John


Atkins, Robert
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Barnes, Harry
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Bates, Michael
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beggs, Roy
Budgen, Nicholas





Burns, Simon
Hendry, Charles


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Robert


Butcher, John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Butler, Peter
Home Robertson, John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Horam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Sir Ralph (North


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Norfolk)


Chapman, Sydney
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clappison, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jack, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Coe, Sebastian
Jessel, Toby


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Congdon, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Conway, Derek
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
Kilfedder, Sir James


Cryer, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Day, Stephen
Knox, Sir David


Devlin, Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dixon, Don
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dover, Den
Legg, Barry


Duncan, Alan
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lewis, Terry


Dunn, Bob
Lidington, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lightbown, David


Eggar, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Elletson, Harold
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Loyden, Eddie


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Faber, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
McMaster, Gordon


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Madden, Max


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mahon, Alice


Forth, Eric
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gallie, Phil
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gardiner, Sir George
Merchant, Piers


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Milligan, Stephen


Garnier, Edward
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gerrard, Neil
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gill, Christopher
Monro, Sir Hector


Gillan, Cheryl
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Moss, Malcolm


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorst, John
Norris, Steve


Graham, Thomas
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Page, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Paice, James


Grylls, Sir Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hague, William
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Pickles, Eric


Hampson, Dr Keith
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hanley, Jeremy
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Harris, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Harvey, Nick
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Richards, Rod


Hayes, Jerry
Riddick, Graham


Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn






Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Thomason, Roy


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Trend, Michael


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skinner, Dennis
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Spearing, Nigel
Watts, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whittingdale, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Spring, Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sproat, Iain
Willetts, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stephen, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Michael Brown.


Sykes, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Local Government Finance

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 8) (House of Commons Paper No. 724), which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
The special grant report which is before the House for debate tonight concludes some unfinished business from this year's local government finance settlement.
The report honours a commitment that the then Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), made in the revenue support grant debate last February to provide special financial assistance to certain local authorities. The package of assistance comprises two separate special grants. We expect that, taking the two grant schemes together, between £3 million and £4 million of Government support is likely to be provided during the next 12 months.
The first of the two schemes is a continuation of the special grant in respect of displaced persons from the former republic of Yugoslavia introduced towards the end of the last financial year.
The turmoil in what was once Yugoslavia tragically caused many thousands of people to flee their homes or to be driven from them. That led to the largest number of refugees and displaced persons in Europe since the end of the second world war. Many of those people made their way to this country during the first few months of the Bosnian conflict.
As a result, local authorities in some areas faced the prospect of demands on local services disproportionate to their resources. For example, some 170 people had to be accommodated by Uttlesford district council following their arrival at Stansted airport. That is why the Government agreed to provide financial help to those authorities that were most affected.
In some parts of the country local authorities are still having to cope with the problems associated with the refugees who arrived here last year. We are therefore extending last year's scheme of assistance into the current financial year.
Similar considerations apply to the exceptional costs associated with refugee and asylum-seeking children who arrive in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by parents or guardians. The second grant scheme covered by the special grant report relates to that problem.
The costs to local authorities of responding to the needs of unaccompanied refugee children are considerable. Authorities have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to care for and maintain such children unless they are privately fostered, in which case they have a duty to satisfy themselves that the welfare of the children is being satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted. The costs are highest immediately after the arrival of the children in this country.

Mr. Max Madden: How many local authorities have applied for the grant and, of those, how many have had the grant application accepted and how many refused? Secondly, does the English language support element of the grant cover travel costs and fees for English tuition?

Mr. Baldry: No one will be able to apply for the grant until the order is approved, so no local authority has applied for the grant this year. There are two grams, one for Yugoslays and the other for unaccompanied children. We expect that a number of authorities will apply for the grants. Whether the grant will be applied will depend on whether they meet or exceed the threshold.
Next year, the pressures associated with unaccompanied children who have arrived in recent years should be fully reflected in standard spending assessments because detailed information from the 1991 census will, for the first time, feed through into the assessments. However, as this year's SSAs do not take account of those data, we accept that there is a case for special financial assistance towards the costs incurred in 1993–94 by the authorities that are subject to the heaviest financial burden.
Generally, local authorities should be able to make provision within their budgets for the costs of dealing with refugees and asylum seekers. The mechanisms of central Government support for local authorities already take account of the sorts of spending pressures that tend to be associated with the presence of refugees.
Most asylum seekers settle in London. The needs of the London boroughs are assessed as high—within SSAs—precisely because they face a range of unusual pressures such as refugee arrivals. For example, in London the children's personal social services element of SSAs is much higher than the national average. For 1993–94, the national average is £35 per head; the averarge per head for inner London is £131.
We take the view—entirely reasonably, I believe—that generally it should be possible for local authorities to budget for the costs that refugees and asylum seekers impose from within the resources provided by SSAs. We believe that SSAs provide the best means of distributing resources to local authorities; they allow the authorities maximum discretion to set their spending priorities in the light of pressures from all residents, whether indigenous or not. We are conducting a review of SSAs and would welcome any constructive suggestions on the methodology that may relate to refugees.
From time to time, however, situations can arise leading to a sudden influx of asylum seekers from a particular area, which may place on certain local authorities burdens that are outside their normal experience. The influx of asylum seekers from former Yugoslavia is an example—hence the Yugoslavian displaced persons grant last year and this year.
It is only reasonable that authorities should have made some provision for contingencies within their budgets. That is why grant is to be targeted at authorities that incur expenditure above a threshold. In 1994–95, the SSAs for authorities with refugee children resident in their areas should provide sufficient resources. That is likely to mean that a further grant scheme will be unnecessary.
Both grant schemes have been modelled on the Bellwin scheme. The principles are broadly the same. A spending threshold set for each local authority represents the amount for which the authority could reasonably be expected to budget as a contingency. Grant will be paid to meet 85 per cent. of the eligible expenditure above the threshold.
We have, of course, consulted the local authority associations about the schemes, and have taken their comments into account. In particular, we have accepted their suggestion that authorities that incur spending under

both schemes should not be obliged to spend up to the level of their threshold twice in order to qualify for grant. To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), local authorities will have the first of several opportunities to claim grant within the next few weeks.
It remains our view that the most appropriate means of distributing resources to local authorities is through their SSAs. SSAs permit local authorities to use their discretion in determining their own spending priorities within the resources available to them, and to weigh up the competing demands on their services from all local residents, whether indigenous or not. Special grants restrict that discretion.
Nevertheless, we accept that there is a good case for making exceptions to this rule this year in view of the timelags that affect the SSA calculations. The two grant schemes incorporated in Special Grant Report (No. 8) should ensure that assistance is targeted at the local authorities that are most in need. I commend the report to the House.

Mr. Doug Henderson: The House will recognise—even at this, a later hour than anticipated—that the movement of peoples seeking asylum across borders is not constant, but fluctuates depending on the world situation. The average number of refugees seeking asylum in this country was 3,736 per month during 1991, and that had changed to 1,796 between January and June 1992. I hope to prod the Minister on more recent figures later.
As part of our meeting their international obligations, countries such as ours quite naturally want to be able to show concern for people who face political difficulties, and who seek asylum. That means that countries such as ours will on occasion want to give certain refugees temporary residence, and at others will want to give permanent asylum to those who seek to escape from troubles in their original land.
Substantial costs are involved, including those in resettlement, social services, education—many of the refugees cannot speak much English—housing and counselling. Local authorities in which people locate after seeking asylum will probably be able to identify many other costs. Indeed, the order itemises a number of areas where authorities may claim grant.
The crucial question is: who pays for those costs on society? Some people in the private sector may be able to make a contribution. Obviously, such contributions are welcomed. Clearly, the charitable sector makes an important contribution in meeting the needs of refugees and other people in a similar plight.
Few hon. Members would argue that the largest burden falls on the public sector. It is a question whether the needs of refugees can best be met through central Government finance or local government finance. That is the question that is raised by the order before us tonight.
If refugees settle throughout the country in an even pattern and at a predictable and even rate throughout the year, certainly it would be possible theoretically to reflect their needs in the way in which the standard spending assessment is calculated for local government annually, if the House accepts that the largest part of the burden must be met by local authorities.
I hope that the Minister recognises that that is not what happens, because the number of those seeking asylum is not constant or predictable, and the spread across different parts of the country is not even. Because of the lack of predictability, it is difficult for the SSA to reflect the needs of any community at a specific time. Therefore, it is right and proper that the Government will meet special needs which cannot be foreseen as they arise.
In the case of the Vietnamese refugees who sought asylum recently, the Government's policy was to ensure that there was, as far as possible, a broad distribution throughout different parts of the country. However, in the case of those refugees from the territory previously known as Yugoslavia, the Government's policy—it is not challenged by the various agencies involved—is that there should be an attempt to cluster those who are seeking asylum in this country, perhaps for good reasons. They will know each other and will be able to stand together in building a new life in the United Kingdom.
My purpose is not to argue about the rights and wrongs of how best to deal with the matter. I want to look at the impact of the lack of predictability on the necessary financial provision. Because of the unevenness and lack of predictability, the current SSA system does not cover the needs of the local authorities where the refugees are located.
Even if we lay to one side all the arguments about what is right and wrong with the way in which the SSA is designed, the formula does not take account of the true costs of providing refugee services. The assumptions that are built into the SSA are not realistic. When the SSA is based on a high assumed tax base, many authorities do not qualify for the special grants, because of the threshold provisions. I can foresee a situation in which some refugees who have located in an authority where there is a higher tax base will be locating in an authority that will not qualify for special grant, and therefore will not be able to meet the needs of many of those who are seeking asylum.
Does the Minister recognise that this system of assistance is based on unrealistic assumptions? It is unrealistic to believe that, in the current financial regime, local authorities have contingency funds that can be used and set aside to meet the needs of refugees.
Most local authorities are already struggling to meet the needs of their ordinary population because of the financial regime under which they must operate. Many of the contingency reserves that those authorities have wisely built up over the years have had to be used to meet those needs.
Where such contingency funds are available, the local population in Conservative-controlled boroughs in London, such as Barnet and Enfield, argue that those boroughs should use those funds to meet the needs that those residents have already identified. It does not make much sense then to argue that the special needs of refugees can be met from funds that should be kept in reserve, especially when those funds are already earmarked for local purposes. In any case, many authorities no longer have such funds.
The Government argue that a threshold system must be introduced, so that part of the assumed cost of meeting the refugee need is built into local government finance, but, with their introduction of the special grant, the

Government also recognise that local government lacks the necessary resources to meet that need. The threshold system will not meet the needs of refugees, and boroughs under all political control will have to seek special help from the Government to meet the challenges they face in trying to meet those needs.
Can the Minister confirm that, in the previous financial year, only three authorities received special grant? Can he also confirm that less than £90,000 in total was paid out to meet the needs of those who claimed that special grant? I accept that the Minister is unable to tell us how many authorities are likely to claim special grant this year, although his civil servants may have some idea.
I am sure that the Minister can identify, however, those authorities that applied for the grant last year and were told that they did not qualify because they were assumed to have the resources to meet the need, or had prepared schemes that were not in line with the Government's thinking. I hope that the Minister can supply that information, which has already been requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).
Since November, responsibility for funding has largely passed to the British Refugee Council and the British Red Cross. Since then, only 240 people from the former Yugoslavia have settled here. As part of the Government's international obligations, however, they have already accepted that 1,000 people, plus up to 4,000 of their dependants, can settle here. Does the Minister believe that more than that 240 will come to our country? To what extent has that already happened?
To allow a proper debate, can the Minister tell us what moneys have already been paid to the British Refugee Council? How much money does he expect to pay this year and in the future to that council to meet the needs of those refugees who have been accepted and are in need of assistance?
The order relates to the period from April 1992 to November 1992. Can the Minister confirm that 6,000 people from the former Yugoslavia came to the United Kingdom between January 1992 and January 1993? How many of them have subsequently left the country or stated their intention to do so? How many refugees applied for asylum up to June this year? How many applications were rejected and how many cases are pending up to the end of June this year?
Can the Minister estimate how much special grant will be distributed to local authorities during the period in which the order will take effect? He may be tempted to say that he will not know the size of the pool available until he knows the demand, but his civil servants would be unwise not to have made some calculations on that matter. It is better that the House realises now that difficulties lie ahead, rather that being told about problems later.
As the Under-Secretary said in his opening remarks, the Government recognise that there is considerable unease at how the formula that flows from the standard spending assessment is calculated. They have already said that they are prepared to review the criteria. In that connection, will the Minister agree to meet representatives of the various local authority associations to consider a fairer and more effective system to deal with the distribution of grant in relation to special needs?
There are many unknown factors, and I do not know to what extent the Minister can answer all the questions this evening. Does he accept that a monitoring system should be established so that Parliament can scrutinise what is


happening? We would then not have to debate this matter every year to try to examine what has happened in the past, what difficulties arose and what should be done in the future.
There should be an automatic system of scrutiny. Parliament should know how many people are involved, their geographical distribution and location, how many applications have been received from local authorities and others, whether they have been accepted, and on what grounds. Parliament should know the Government's response to those applications and the cost to the Treasury. Can the Minister give a commitment that he will consider the possibility of providing an annual report to Parliament, so that those matters can be properly scrutinised?

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is asking some extremely pertinent questions, and I fear that the Minister may be unable to supply answers, because there is an urgent need for the Government to co-ordinate refugee policy. We have two Ministers on the Front Bench, and the Department of Education is also directly involved.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as refugees will remain in this country for the foreseeable future, there is an urgent need for Government co-ordination led by a single Minister of a senior status, so that the information that he is rightly requesting can be supplied to Parliament annually, at least, and a Minister would be accountable for all aspects of refugee policy?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I have received correspondence from the British Refugee Council, which has made a similar point. The different Departments desperately need to pull together on that important matter, and one Department should be clearly identified as a lead Department, so that decisions can be made more swiftly.
The British Refugee Council makes the criticism that too many of the Government's decisions and initiatives on those matters are short-term, and that a much longer-term approach is needed. Refugees do not come to this country for six months and then suddenly disappear as a problem from the area that they locate. They have housing, education and social service needs, all of which develop as they begin to establish themselves in communities.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, some three years ago, in 1990, when a group of unaccompanied Eritrean children arrived in this country, a delegation of Labour Members from London and other places went to the Department of Health to discuss their needs? We then went to see the Department of the Environment, the Department of Social Security and the Home Office. At that time, we were calling for a serious co-ordination of strategy to ensure that those children were properly looked after and given the necessary support. Three years later, that co-ordination has still not happened.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which has been made to me and others by the various organisations that are trying to provide assistance for refugees. They wonder what difference there is between refugees originating from the former Yugoslavia and those originating from other areas, such as Eritrea and Somalia, and believe that there might be an equally strong case to be made on their behalf.
That is precisely the type of matter that could be disussed between the lead Department and the various local authority associations which are having to meet the needs of refugees generally.
A leader of one such association has suggested that some Government contingency funds designated for refugees from the former Yugoslavia have already been earmarked to deal with problems concerned with refugees from elsewhere in the world who have settled here and for whom no special grants are available. That is another reason why it is difficult to deal with the issue through contingency funds.
We need a long-term, properly co-ordinated approach. So long as Britain plays an important role in international situations, such as in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, and accepts international obligations and demonstrates humanity, there will be a continuing need for funds to meet the needs of refugees.
That need cannot satisfactorily be met through the standard spending assessment if the bulk of the burden is to be carried by local authorities. Too many of the issues involved lack predictability. That being so, the SSA system, even if all the anomalies were ironed out, is not the best way to cope with that type of need.
I urge the Minister to be straight with the House and accept that his proposals, while better than nothing, are pathetically short-term. Having accepted the obligation of caring for refugees, which does this country no harm in international negotiations, we risk being accused of failing to make adequate provision for people whom we have identified as deserving.
Will the Minister accept that, despite less than £90,000 by way of special grant, less than £12 per head, having been paid to local authorities last year to meet the needs of refugees, and despite the good work done by some charities and individuals, the main burden continues to fall on local authorities? It is time for a fair deal to be given to councils which must, and want to, help refugees. It is also time for a fair deal to be given to the refugees themselves.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I warmly welcome the report and the terms in which the Minister explained its purposes. My local authority, the London borough of Hillingdon, will benefit from the grant referred to in the report. I anticipate that it will benefit by about £550,000 this year. That will be of enormous relief to my constituents in Uxbridge and to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), whose constituencies, like mine, are situated in the borough of Hillingdon.
I agreed with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about the standard spending assessment. It is difficult, if not impossible, for local authorities to meet from their contingency funds the high cost of caring for unaccompanied child refugees.
We all know that local authorities are hard pressed. Every pound of expenditure has to be accounted for and there is no spare cash available to meet the substantial costs involved in such an exercise. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North spoke of the need for scrutiny. While I agree with him on that, I must say that the Public Accounts Committee takes a keen interest in the


way in which public funds are spent, and it would not surprise me if the Public Accounts Committee involved itself in such affairs in future.
The grant available represents 85 per cent. of Hillingdon's relevant expenditure on unaccompanied child refugees who arrive, principally at Heathrow airport, from Eritrea, Uganda, Angola and elsewhere in Africa. In Hillingdon we do not have much of a problem with caring for people who come from former Yugoslavia; our problem mainly involves unaccompanied child refugees from Africa. For Hillingdon that expenditure amounted to £1 million last year.
The expense is resented by many of my constituents, who find the cost reflected in their council tax bills. It is incurred by Hillingdon because Heathrow airport is located within its boundary and the local authority has a duty, under the Children Act 1989, to care for refugee children who are abandoned at the airport. I am talking about young people under the age of 18. A number of those who have been taken into the care of my local authority have been teenagers in their late teens, just under the age limit. We are not talking merely about tiny children.
The cost to a borough such as mine of caring for anything between 35 and 50 youngsters is substantial. The money is spent on accommodation and maintenance and on promoting the welfare of children who are fostered within the district. It is expensive because sometimes when a child is fostered, he or she takes the place of another child from the immediate vicinity who might have been placed with those foster parents. There are also the costs of publicity and advertising for suitable foster parents. In addition, there is the not inconsiderable cost of interpretation services. It is not surprising that those costs are high when one considers that the young people involved frequently do not speak any English, but a variety of African languages—interpretation is essential.
How do those youngsters arrive in a borough such as Hillingdon, and the furthest extremities of the county of Middlesex? We all know that they come to Heathrow airport because they are abandoned, usually on the passenger side of the terminal, but sometimes on the air side. They often arrive in the United Kingdom having boarded the aircraft at the point of departure in one of the African countries using false papers which have been supplied to them by an unknown agency. They use the papers to pass through emigration, board the aircraft and

make the passage to the United Kingdom. Those papers are frequently destroyed on the flight, when they are flushed down the lavatory. Having arrived at Heathrow, the young person waits until the aircraft which brought him or her to this country has departed for another destination.
When the youngsters eventually present themselves before the immigration services, they are unable to speak our language and unable to say how they arrived or with what assistance. It is impossible to refuse them entry or care for them, and the local authority has to take them into care in accordance with the provisions of the Children Act.
My constituents are generous and tolerant, but they ask me some difficult questions. The straightforward question that I hear from my constituents, whether they live in Harefield in the north or West Drayton in the south, is, why do we have to pay the costs of caring for the youngsters when it is a national problem? If national policy is that they should be cared for, surely the cost should be borne by the national Exchequer. That view is very understandable.
Once such youngsters have arrived in this country, there is no realistic possibility of their being returned to the countries of origin, even if those countries are no longer at war. Even if they have child care facilities, it is virtually impossible, because of the provisions of this country's legislation on children, to return them. A child has only to object.
This matter has exercised my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and myself for more than two years. It is partly as a result of our representations to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as well as to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), as successive Secretaries of State for the Environment, who have considered the matter with sympathy, that I am welcoming this step. We are confronted with a very difficult problem, which should be dealt with and paid for by the nation rather than by the people of one or two local authority areas.
I welcome what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has said about a review of the rate support grant formula for future years. I am particularly glad to welcome the assistance that he has provided, thus demonstrating that we have a listening Government who are dealing with a very complex problem that requires the sympathy and understanding of all hon. Members.

Mr. Tony Worthington: As I am the Member for a Scottish constituency, it is appropriate that I should first pay tribute to Mrs. Christine Witcutt, who was killed yesterday by sniper fire in Sarajevo. She was delivering clothes and medical supplies in that part of the former Yugoslavia. Mrs. Witcutt represented an organisation called Edinburgh Direct Aid. All hon. Members will want to express their deep sympathy for her family and to make it clear that alongside their great grief is their pride in what she was doing.
I want to ask hon. Members to consider the omissions from this provision. This is a report of the Department of the Environment, issued under local government finance legislation relating to England. There is no reference to or provision for Scotland. We have been told by the Scottish Office that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not have power to make specific grants for this purpose and that if Scottish local authorities face additional expenditure for the resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers, this will be taken into account, in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in determing the level of aggregate external finance. Any hon. Member who believes such a thing is not fit to be let out on his own. There is no such specific power, although Scottish authorities will face similar additional expenditure in terms of provision for extra teachers and social workers.
I pay tribute to the Scottish Refugee Council and to Scottish local authorities and Government Departments that provide for education, social work, social security, housing and health. I am not so unreasonable as to expect the Under-Secretary of State to answer my questions tonight. I am sure, however, that he will be able to forward my queries to the appropriate quarters and to direct attention to this anomaly, to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will also no doubt refer.
On page 7 of the report, paragraph 1(d) refers to
the cost of interpretation services, other than costs which have been funded through grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966.
The problem is that section 11 does not apply to Scotland. Labour Members have frequently asked for it to apply, but that has been resisted by the Scottish Office. Therefore, the cost of interpretation services in Scotland does not qualify for additional grant.
The Scottish Office has said that urban aid can be used as the equivalent of section 11 grants, but a recent parliamentary answer confirmed that no projects for refugees or asylum seekers have been funded under urban aid. Worse than that, a project submitted by the Scottish Refugee Council, fully supported by Strathclyde regional council and, I believe, the social services group within the Scottish Office, has been turned down by the administrative arm of the Scottish Office on the ground that it is not appropriate for urban aid.
The lack of necessary powers leads to problems, especially when linked with some recent Government proposals. For example, the setting up of independent further education colleges, with a duty to provide further education in their areas, meant that when the Scottish Refugee Council wanted a 10-week English course for some refugees, Stevenson college charged it £6,250. Of course, the council does not have that sort of funds, so I

am pleased that the course has now been funded by the Scottish Office on a one-off basis, using the mechanism of a section 10 grant under the Social Work Acts. However, the council was told that it was definitely a one-off, last-chance grant and not to expect it again.
The problems of refugees will not be solved by a 10-week course, so where will future funding come from? We are dealing with people who have been through appalling experiences and who will probably have health and social problems for a long time to come. Anyone who is realistic about the position in the former Yugoslavia cannot be anything other than pessimistic about the likelihood of further refugees coming to Britain—certainly if we have a decent Government who take their fair share of responsibility.
There is an anomaly because the Scottish Office cannot pay the special grant provided for in the report because the Secretary of State does not have the necessary power to do so. Section I I, which is referred to in the report, is also not applicable to Scotland. The report refers to urban aid, but particular projects have been turned down on the ground that it is not appropriate to refugees.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make these points, and I hope that the Minister will be able to redirect them to the relevant section of the Government. I believe that I have demonstrated that this order is being put forward in a way that will lead to anomalies as between the different countries of the United Kingdom.

11 pm

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I do not want it to appear to be simply a love-in with the Minister on the Conservative side, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I want to express my gratitude to him and to the Government for the measures enshrined in the report.
I represent the whole of Uttlesford district council, which contains Stansted airport. With no disrespect to the efforts put in over a long period by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the other hon. Members representing Hillingdon, I like to think that it was the circumstances that confronted Uttlesford district council when a planeload of refugees from the former Yugoslavia arrived one Sunday evening that helped to tip the scales in Government thinking about how this kind of situation was to be addressed.
The arrival of 150 or more refugees in a small rural district council area was out of all proportion to the circumstances of that council and its ability to deal with them. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that it dealt with it extremely well and capably. He listened most patiently and sympathetically to the representations that the council subsequently made to him, and I was delighted when there was an indication of a positive reaction.
It is all very well, I say to my hon. Friend—so that I do not appear to speak entirely in terms of fulsome praise —to refer to contingencies, as the Government have traditionally done, and to say that local authorities must be assumed to be capable of dealing with them, but some things are out of all proportion to any kind of preparation for contingencies that an authority can make.
I concede that every local authority in the country can have different forms of contingency. If there is an airport within the boundaries, one may speculate on a certain type


of contingency that may flow from that. Other problems, such as a cliff falling away, may occur in a coastal constituency. All manner of disastrous unexpected events can occur. Obviously, therefore, prudent local authorities must be assumed to be making some provision; but there will from time to time be very unusual happenings that must have special attention.
I therefore anticipate that it may be very difficult, in the ordinary mechanisms of dealing with local government finance, to cover all the sorts of situations that may arise, and not just in the field of immigration and refugees. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) put a whole variety of possibilities, in the form of questions, to my hon. Friend.
Inevitably, however, the Government cannot—and a Minister from the Department of the Environment, away from the baleful glare of the Treasury, certainly cannot—make commitments to spend money in almost any circumstances that might arise. But I hope that, if unusual situations do arise, they will be looked at on their merits, and perhaps the House will be asked again to approve unusual measures of this kind to deal with them. I do not believe that they can necessarily be covered through the mechanisms of local government finance.
Very unusual circumstances arose for Uttlesford district council in this case. It is grateful for the way in which the Government reacted, as am I. We have a very satisfactory result for the people I represent in the district of Uttlesford, and I thank the Minister for that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On Saturday morning, a citizen of the former Yugoslavia came to see me—along with a representative of the British Refugee Council and an interpreter—to talk through his predicament. He has arrived here, has settled in my constituency and has refugee status; his wife has permission to come here. However, his sole remaining close relative—a young adult son, a second-year mechanics student—is not being allowed into the United Kingdom. The wife therefore remains at home in the former Yugoslavia, enduring daily threats, harassment and persecution.
The only other person staying in the family home is the student son's cousin, an 18-year-old who is also unable to come to the United Kingdom. His family have been accommodated in Dewsbury; I shall write to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) probably tomorrow, to enlist her help with the other half of the extended family. No other members of the cousin's family are left in the former Yugoslavia; the other members of both parts of the family are here, or elsewhere in the world.
Two families, then, are settled in two different parts of the United Kingdom. They are part of the small number referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) who have been accepted into the United Kingdom—far fewer, so far, than the number that we were led to expect. They cannot yet be accorded the basic decency of being joined by their closest relatives, because technically they are not dependent—although the cultural and financial reality is that they are entirely dependent: they could rely on no one else if the rest of the family came here as refugees.
The first priority is for the Government to exercise a little humility in regard to what they are doing about refugees from the former Yugoslavia. I do not think that any hon. Member is likely to vote against the motion, because something is better than nothing; 85 per cent. of the cost that falls to local authorities in England and Wales is better than nothing.

Mr. John Home Robertson: What about Scotland?

Mr. Hughes: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He is speaking not just for himself, but for his Scottish colleagues. The distinction between the treatment of Scotland and that of England and Wales is unfair, both generally and specifically—for instance, in regard to section 11 grants. The hon. Gentleman makes his case well; perhaps one of his hon. Friends will add to it.
Let me make a generic point. Although we are using the report to top up funds for British local authorities where refugees are settling, in many respects we are probably not yet dealing adequately with the fundamental problem. We must ensure that, when the moment of need arises, people can come into this country to be with their families. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is present. This case, along with others, will wing its way to his desk very quickly. I hope and expect that he will be generous; I do not expect the Government to be difficult about the matter. I trust that it will not be a question of special pleading, and that the basic merits of the case will facilitate the proceedings.
The hon. Members for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) have referred to the haphazard way in which refugees settle, in the first few days, in the country to which they have fled. Most settle in constituencies, districts and boroughs that contain airports. Many come to urban areas—to the capital, and to cities such as that represented by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), where there is a settled immigrant community. Many, however, come to places where it has not been traditional for them to settle as a race, a people or an ethnic group. They come because that is the first place where somebody makes them an offer.
I make no complaints about the number of refugees who have come to Southwark, because it is a moral duty, a theological duty and, some of us would say, a clearly Christian duty, for the rich world to accommodate refugees. But we have had a succession of refugees, from Somalia, from Eritrea and from Vietnam. Many of those people have come to Southwark not because there were hundreds of other people from their countries here before, but because it was the first available place where they could be housed.
My local authority, Southwark, and all the other local authorities, are left to pick up some of the tab because the money from the Government will fall short. The report gives only, at best, 85 per cent. of the money. There may be an argument that the local authority should make a contribution. I do not necessarily dissent from that, but the issue is the fair spread of contributions, when the responsibility is an overall British responsibility. I do not want to be misunderstood; I make no complaint about the fact that we have our share of refugees. My argument is that we as a nation have a duty, which I hope that we shall continue to have, to accommodate refugees.
Compared with most European Community countries, we have been pretty mean in accommodating refugees from the former Yugoslavia. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department looks as if he disagrees, but the number of people who have come into this country recently as refugees, compared with the numbers going into Germany, Denmark and Luxembourg, for example, are small in relation to our population.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that the large numbers of people who have gone to Germany from the war-torn zone of Yugoslavia have not done so as a result of any political decision made in Germany. The German Government have not decided to enable those people to enter; they have simply arrived across the frontier. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also bear in mind the fact that since September 1991 about 70,000 people from former Yugloslavia have come here in one capacity or another.

Mr. Hughes: I do not disagree with either of the Minister's comments. I know what the figures are for the refugee entry that we have allowed, in terms of heads of families and their dependants. I know, too, that the rate has slowed down and that we have still not reached the target. I do not deny what the Minister has said—that, in terms of the number of people who are here because they cannot be where they want to be, the relative burden on us, as a rich country, is smaller than the burden on other countries.

Mr. Corbyn: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact, but the report does not apply to the generality of refugees, but only to those from former Yugoslavia. Many of the problems that his constituency and mine gladly face—in the sense that we are happy to support people who are refugees—will get no recognition and no help from central Government.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that. I know that the order relates only to the former Yugoslavia. One of my complaints is that the Government may be trying to present a compassionate face—in connection with the former Yugoslavia they may have some justification for doing so—when their general response over the years to the needs of local authorities dealing with refugees has not been especially generous or consistent. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has been misled by the hon. Member for Islington, North, who arrived late. The report relates not to one grant but to two. One concerns refugees from former Yugoslavia, but the other concerns unaccompanied children, wherever they may come from throughout the world.

Mr. Corbyn: What difference does that make? That proves my point.

Mr. Hughes: I accept what the Minister says, but the assistance for refugees who are not unaccompanied children is specific to former Yugoslavia. I believe that the House is clear about that, and I do not want to raise a false issue. The report is specifically designed to deal with the problem of refugees from Yugoslavia, and to give local

authorities in England and Wales 85 per cent. of the funding to deal with certain categories of refugees that result from that problem.
I have two specific points to make about the detail of the report. The first is about section 11 funding. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that the provision was absent in Scotland. It is not as generous as it might appear. In many cases, section 11 funding has been reduced from 75 to 50 per cent. Therefore, the report assists in making up a considerably larger gap in meeting continuing needs in the education sector. They are important needs which local authorities and their schools and teachers, with the best will in the world, find it extremely difficult to meet.
In schools such as some in my constituency, there are 28 mother tongues. Each time that a new category of student armies—say youngsters from Yugoslavia who speak Serbo-Croat or whatever—they have to be provided for. I hope that we shall equally be able to grant fund people such as the students to whom I referred at the beginning of my speech who will want to go to university, polytechnic or college to continue their education.
My second point has been referred to by others. What the Minister said about the review of the system for allocating funding and assessing needs is important. The Government are doing a general review. The standard spending assessment mechanism needs to be far more accurate and honest in reflecting differential need, and far more responsive. I have always taken the view that the best judges of what is the best system, if they can agree—I believe that if they are asked to agree, they will—are the local authorities.
I hope that, at the end of the review, the system for making sure that local authorities are compensated for dealing with particular burdens such as those that fall across all the sectors dealing with refugees is one that the local authorities propose and support. If we all knew that the report and others like it came to the House blessed in every detail by the local authority associations in England and Wales and by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the House would be much happier.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am obviously pleased that some money is being provided for refugees from ex-Yugoslavia and unaccompanied children. I shall speak about the shortcomings of the proposals, but I welcome the provision of some money.
The proposals seem to be a minor, low-key response to what for many local authorities is a major problem. They have to cope with large numbers of refugees. It is a pity that the proposals coincide with other action by the Government which will be prejudicial to the interests of refugees. The cut in section 11 funding from 75 per cent. now to 57 per cent. in 1994–95, and eventually to 50 per cent., is particularly prejudicial. It is a pity that that is happening at the same time as the Government have accepted a private Member's Bill which I originated to widen the definition of section 11 funding and make more refugees eligible to receive the money. I hope that the Government will see that that money needs to be matched by a commitment to reverse the cuts.
There seem to be several problems with the specific grant which is the subject of the order. The first problem is the time limitations. The Minister made it clear that he


saw the money as a one-off grant. He did not envisage the grant being made in future years, when he expected the SSA system to deal with funding. But that limitation is not the only problem.
If one reads the report carefully, one finds that it covers only refugees from ex-Yugoslavia who arrived between I April 1992 and 6 November 1992, when the visa regime was introduced. One consequence will be that many of the Bosnian refugees whom we will accept through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees programme will not be eligible for funding because they will have arrived after the date on which the order ran out.
It would be too much to expect a retroactive order, but, as has been pointed out, in the past two or three years some London boroughs have spent large amounts of money dealing with unaccompanied children, particularly those who arrived from Eritrea in 1990.
It is strange that we still rely on a formula to distribute grant to local authorities to deal with refugees which was originally devised to deal with the effects of hurricanes, which is what the Bellwin formula was when it was first produced. The last time that it was used was in 1989 when large numbers of Kurdish refugees arrived in this country. I recall then being part of a local authority delegation to the Department of the Environment to discuss that issue.
The issue now, as then, is that the decision whether to admit refugees or asylum seekers to this country is not for local authorities but for the Government or Government agencies. Local authorities have little, if any, control over how many people arrive in their areas at any one time. That depends on existing communities, whether the local authority is located near an airport or railway station and how sympathetic the local authority is.
There is no doubt that which local authorities are likely to adopt a sympathetic attitude to new arrivals is spread by word of mouth, and those that are rightly sympathetic end up being financially penalised. My borough will have to spend more than £300,000 before it qualifies for any money whatever, and some London boroughs will have to spend approaching £500,000.
Local authorities with tight budgets simply do not hold such contingency funds which are not earmarked. Their contingency budgets are set aside to deal with pay rises, interest rate changes and inflation during the year. They simply do not have such amounts of money sitting around not already earmarked.
I am also concerned about the limitations on eligibility. I have already mentioned the time limits and who is eligible from the former Yugoslavia, but what will happen to other refugees? What will happen to local authorities, such as those in east London, where there have been significant arrivals in the past two or three years from Sri Lanka and Somalia? Exactly the same points on dependants apply to those people as to people coming from the former Yugoslavia. Both groups come from countries that have been affected by war and human rights abuses and exactly the same conditions of acceptance of refugees apply to them as to those from the former Yugoslavia.
Why do we have to wait for a crisis before money is found? Why is there no coherent resettlement programme? Why do we have to rely so much on the voluntary sector, the Refugee Council, the refugee arrivals project and on

community groups? It is often the community groups that end up putting in a great deal of effort, work and resources to support new arrivals.
It simply is not the case that standard spending assessments can make adequate allowance for such costs. The Minister really gave the game away when he talked about the 1991 census soon being available. That is already two years out of date. It can in no way cope with people who have arrived since. We all know what happens between censuses. The census used for standard spending assessments becomes more and more out of date and unreliable.
To quote London average figures is no answer either. As everyone knows, refugees are not evenly distributed. Even within London, which attracts far more refugees than many other areas of the country, some London boroughs have far more refugees within their boundaries than others. SSAs are simply not sensitive enough to cope with differences between one local authority and its neighbour or with the changes that take place from one year to the next when large numbers of people arrive. We know that there are always anomalies in SSAs. The factors that affect SSAs in large measure are not the arrival of refugees—

Mr. Corbyn: On the point about the attitudes of local authorities, is my hon. Friend aware that the whole system is a positive disincentive to local authorities at the point of arrival and a positive encouragement to them to send them on elsewhere? I am sure that he will be aware that in London a surprisingly small number of refugees are assisted by Westminster city council and a much larger number by councils surrounding the City of Westminster. He can draw his own conclusions from that.

Mr. Gerrard: That is absolutely right, and that pattern is repeated across the country: refugees tend to be concentrated in certain areas, often depending on how sympathetic a local authority is.
Local authorities are being put in the invidious position of having to cut services for other people to provide for refugees. The potential that that creates for resentment and for racism should not be underestimated. The services and items of expenditure that are listed as eligible are virtually all related to temporary services. No doubt it will be argued that SSAs will cover the rest. But how temporary is temporary? As many hon. Members have pointed out, refugees do not stay for six months and then go away.
Local authorities that try to avoid, for example, the use of temporary accommodation, and whose policies are, wherever possible, to put people into permanent accommodation straight away, are the ones who suffer because they do not qualify for the grants that are proposed. In future, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill will force local authorities into using more temporary accommodation and that will entail much greater cost.
Not all local authorities have to deal with refugees. There are good reasons—often to do with community—why refugees end up in certain local authority areas. We know that local authorities vary considerably in the extent to which they take their responsibilities seriously. At present, those which do take them seriously are penalised. The Government should be prepared to accept their responsibility, but the report does little other than to emphasise the inadequacy of what they are prepared to do.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I refer in particular to the plight of refugees from former Yugoslavia: first, because, when I visited both Croatia and Bosnia with the Select Committee on Defence back in February, I saw a little of the mayhem from which people are trying to escape; and, secondly, because I have in my constituency a small reception centre for some of the refugees from Bosnia who have been accepted by Britain. That reception centre is run by the Scottish Refugee Council at Cheylesmore lodge in North Berwick and I may say that people have rightly been made immensely welcome by my constituents. I pay tribute to all the voluntary agencies and to everyone else who has been involved.
I am afraid that there is a slight contrast between the enthusiasm and efficiency of the Scottish Refugee Council in its work and the kind of support that has been forthcoming from central Government. I see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place. He may recall that I spoke to him and was in touch with his office. I ended up having to table a parliamentary question to ensure that the initial tranche of £75,000 actually got through to the Scottish Refugee Council to provide for the needs of those refugees.
The situation was absurd. These people had arrived from Bosnia and there they were in a former local authority old people's home which had been refurbished using voluntary work over the weekend. The advice that came from the Home Office when the money did not come through was, "Oh dear. We are in the process of changing our accounting system. Can't they get a loan from the bank to tide them over for a bit?" The money came through, and so far, so good. I understand that the next tranche is due shortly and I hope that we will not have the same problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) made the point that the order does not apply to Scotland. I appreciate that not as many refugees come to Scotland as come to other parts of the United Kingdom, but we do have refugees. Certainly, there are the refugees in my constituency to whom I referred. Local authorities are providing back-up and incurring costs and they should be able to get the support that they require to cover those costs.
I stress that the refugees in my constituency are extremely welcome. I am delighted that many of them are resettling in public sector housing in my constituency. However, it would be helpful if the local authority could get an additional capital allocation to compensate for the fact that some of the limited housing stock is being made available to them. Such matters should be taken into account and I fear that that is not happening at present. The same point could be made about education costs and other costs that arise.
There is no way in which the contribution to local authorities in England is begrudged in any way, but the Government should put in place a system for Scotland. It is right that we are debating the order for a special grant for local authorities in England which are affected, but why do we not have something equivalent to support local authorities in Scotland?
I visited the reception centre in North Berwick and was concerned to hear reports of difficulties involving dependants coming to join their families. This point was

raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am worried to hear that these people are experiencing difficulties with genuine dependants—they may not be direct relations but they are dependants—who are apparently finding it difficult to join their families who have been evacuated to Scotland.
I wish that we could do more to make it possible for those people to remain in their own country. However, as the United Nations is conspicuously failing to do that, it is right that we should give some of those people a safe haven here. We probably need more of them. Let us get our act together and ensure that there is proper back-up for local authorities, not only in England but in Scotland.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I apologise to the House for missing the Minister's speech and part of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). I was detained outside on an extremely urgent matter and that is the reason why I missed those speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has given me a full and accurate account of everything that was said. I am sure that the Minister will trust my hon. Friend to relay his words to me. Perhaps not, but we can all read Hansard tomorrow.
My brief point—because I want to give the Minister sufficient time to reply—is that we live in a world in which a large number of people are forced to seek refuge in other countries. The experience of many of those people in their own countries is absolutely horrific. When they finally arrive at a place of safety—in this case, we are talking about this country—they obviously need help, support, consideration and recognition, but they also need respect.
We should recognise that those who seek asylum here are not coming here to be supplicants for the rest of their lives. They have suffered a terrible defeat. They want to make a positive contribution to our society in education, health and many other areas. The enormous achievements of former refugees must also be recognised. I refer to those who fled from Nazi Germany in the 1930s and the enormous contribution that they have made in so many areas, as well as those from Chile, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq and many other places. We should recognise the positive achievements and not allow the debate to be dragged into the gutter by the xenophobia of some of the popular press in this country. It is important that we recognise that.
There are many inadequacies in the Government's strategy for dealing with this matter. I have had experience of dealing with refugees from a large number of different places and circumstances. I recall the terrible experience of the unaccompanied Eritrean children who arrived here in 1990. There were various reasons why they were unaccompanied. There were understandable reasons why their documents were destroyed, why they sought refuge in this country and why their parents sent them here. Their parents felt that it was no longer safe to keep their children in that country and, because they could not get away, they put their children on planes to come here.
I hope that the Government recognise that the attitude adopted by local authorities at that time was variable, to put it mildly. Some did a great deal to support those unaccompanied children, but they ended up with a large bill because they are demanding children who need help and support.
The problem with the order is that it applies solely to the former Yugoslavia and all unaccompanied children. I am glad that it applies to all such children, but I want to see it extended to provide greater guarantees for authorities and refugees. I do not believe that it is likely, as the Minister so grandly says, that future SSAs will bear in mind the needs of refugee communities. Up to now, they have not. Unless some change is made to the way in which SSAs are calculated, I do not see any likelihood of any future change.
I have the utmost sympathy for all the refugees from the former Yugoslavia. I do not believe that our country has done enough for refugees from Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia or wherever. We must do far more and history will not look kindly on the attitude shown to those refugees who have sought asylum. Their situation is terrible and they deserve support. There are, however, refugees from Somalia, Zaire, Angola, Mozambique and many other places who have been subject to equally horrific experiences.
Horror and disturbances do not occur where the BBC and Kate Adie happen to be; they occur where they happen—in many other places other than the former Yugoslavia. The Government scheme for the former Yugoslavia may be inadequate and limited—it does not apply to refugees in Scotland—but if they can introduce it for that country, the same should be introduced for people from other parts of the world.

Mr. Baldry: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate.
Everyone who has spoken has welcomed the report and the grants included in it. It has been a debate about questions and issues and I know that hon. Members have no intention of dividing the House on the order.
The crux of the matter is whether some special grant should be introduced to deal with refugees. It is important to note that the pressures that refugees bring to bear on local services are not different in kind from the pressures that anyone with distinctive needs places on a local authority.
The most appropriate means of central support for local government is through the distribution of revenue support grant, based on SSAs. In general, we believe that authorities should have sufficient resources to cover the costs incurred by asylum seekers and refugees.
The kinds of pressure that refugees exert on local services are picked up in the SSA. Those refugees do not impose additional costs on local authorities because they are refugees; extra costs are incurred because many refugees, though not all, place extra demands on the housing, education and social services provided by those authorities.
The need for such services in an area is already reflected in the SSA. The SSAs of those local authorities in which refugees tend to congregate, particularly in London, are generally higher than those of other authorities precisely because those authorities face the spending pressures that tend to be associated with the presence of refugees. As they are assimilated into the local population, the personal circumstances and characteristics of the refugees are

recorded in the various indicators used to calculate SSAs, so that the costs imposed by them are reflected in the resources available to a given area.
Concern has been expressed about the threshold that local authorities must reach before they qualify for grant. It is important to remember that that threshold is, in effect, the equivalent of the product of a tuppenny rate, under the old system, and the equivalent of £5 for a band D equivalent under the council tax. It is not unreasonable to expect local authorities to be able to meet that sort of contingency, and rightly so.
It is also important to appreciate that not all local authorities face the sort of pressures described tonight. For example, Birmingham estimates that this year its costs, under this grant scheme, will be £71,000, which is equivalent to only 0·008 per cent. of its total spending. It is not unreasonable to expect an authority in those circumstances to be able to meet that expenditure out of its contingency and reserve funds.
The order relates to two grants. The first is for Yugoslav refugees and the second is for unaccompanied children. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) asked how much I thought we would be paying out in grants. As I made clear in my opening comments, it may be somewhere between £3 million and £4 million. I was asked whether I would meet local authority representatives.
As I also made clear, we are perfectly prepared to consider any constructive suggestions about how the methodology of the standard spending assessments could be improved to accommodate refugees but, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, that methodology must be robust. We are undertaking a comprehensive review of the SSAs and I anticipate that, within the context of that review, the local authority associations, particularly those in London, will want to make their views known as to how the SSA formula could apply. We shall listen to those views positively.
I was asked whether I would make available to the House an annual report on asylum seekers. I am prepared to provide details to the House on matters for which I am responsible as and when they are requested.
I welcome the constructive comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). I pay tribute to the constructive way in which their local authorities, and many other local authorities, have met the challenges with which they have been confronted. However, it is important to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, who is concerned about unaccompanied children, that the number of unaccompanied children appears to be dropping. In April this year, the total was one from the Ivory Coast, one from Kenya, one from Lebanon, four from Somalia, one from Sri Lanka, one from Turkey and three from Zaire. So we must put the matter into context.
The hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked what happens in Scotland. It is fair to point out that the Scottish Office is in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the question of refugees, and that COSLA has so far received no representations from member authorities about additional burdens being placed on them by the need to provide services for refugees.
I recognise that the hon. Member for East Lothian has a number of refugee families in his constituency. He described the circumstances relating to them, and I shall draw the attention of ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office to the points that he raised.
The order concerns two grants that have been devised because we recognise that special circumstances relate to the Yugoslav refugees and unaccompanied children. But the methodology of allocating money should enable local authorities to make adequate provision for refugees within their areas. I have no doubt that they can do that.
Of those London authorities likely to qualify for grant for unaccompanied children this year, no authority that will not qualify comes within more than half of the threshold. So very few local authorities will have incurred significant expenditure this year on the two areas that we are considering. For example, the London borough of Barking estimates that it will spend only £15,500; Barnet estimates that it will spend £24,000; Kensington and Chelsea will receive grant; and the London borough of Merton estimates that it will spend £68,000.
We are ensuring that those local authorities that are making significant contributions will be refunded—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKE.R put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Special Grant Report (No. 8) (House of Commons Paper No. 724), which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

St. Bartholomew's and Royal London Hospitals

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The future of hospitals such as St. Bartholomew's raises questions about the very nature of civilisation. The doctors at the hospital are engaged in a war against disease, perhaps the noblest activity known to mankind. The Secretary of State and her acolytes, who plague the pestilential sewers of government, are engaged in a war against the doctors and their supporters, the patients and the public.
Rarely in politics can there have been an issue which so cruelly defines the difference between right and wrong and where the victims are the most vulnerably poor among us, while the persecutors are so arrogantly powerful.
Bart's was founded by a miracle in 1123, when the monk Raherer had a visitation from God. God has stood by the hospital. Amazingly, our greatest cathedral, St. Paul's, was denounced by the Secretary of State for praying to God to save the hospital. However, the Secretary of State, in turn, was denounced in excoriating terms by the Catholic priest who took the service which preceded this year's dinner at the medical college, at which I was the guest of honour. The Church of England and the Catholic Church may be divided on many things, but they are united in their ecumenical contempt for the Secretary of State.
It is just possible that we are on the verge of another miracle, and that the Secretary of State will be prevented from closing Bart's. I have spoken to a number of barristers and judges about the chances of success of a judicial review of the Government's actions. They are agreed that there is a prima facie case of improper and unlawful conduct on the part of the Secretary of State, on the part of Admiral Staveley, the regional chairman, and on the part of Sir Tim Chessels, chairman of the London Implementation Group.
Judicial review proceedings could be instigated by Bart's, by the community health council, by the City of London corporation, by Hackney, by Islington or by the Save Bart's Campaign, or by all of them together. They could also be instituted by the special trustees who administer the £100 million endowments to prevent those moneys, given by loving and grateful supporters of Bart's down the years, from being stolen by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will confirm tonight that, if Bart's closes—the Treasury wants that money—there would have to be legislation to make the theft of the endowments lawful.
Last week, along with Jeffrey Blum, a victim of the Baltic Exchange bomb, and Bart's cardiac specialist Dr. Duncan Dymond, I met Admiral Staveley to protest about the proposal to close the accident and emergency department. Mr. Blum, a shipbroker from the City, told the admiral that he would be dead if the Secretary of State had had her way earlier and shut the accident and emergency department. Many people feel that the Secretary of State has betrayed the City of London and given succour to the IRA, for whom the higher the body count the better is the publicity.
The consultation process on the proposal to close the accident and emergency department brought forth incandescent rage from the people of Hackney and the City of London. The admiral asked a mere 100 individuals and institutions for their views in the consultation process, but to his amazement received about 41,000 responses, including from every major financial institution in the city, every major company, almost every set of chambers and every firm of accountants. Such is the admiral's contempt for the democratic process that he complains that those people in the City have been got at.
No fewer than 99·95 per cent. of those who responded called for the retention of the accident and emergency department, but earlier this afternoon, at a meeting which I attended, the admiral, acting unlawfully on behalf of the Secretary of State, announced that he would recommend the closure of the department. Astonishingly, the admiral ignored the unanimous views of hon. Members, peers of the realm, local authorities, family health services authorities, general practitioners, community health councils, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Obstetricians and the local purchaser.
What we have witnessed is not consultation, but precision Stalinism on the part of people so ignorant that this afternoon I found myself involuntarily gasping with disbelief at what they were saying.
One must understand that the temporary reprieve given to the accident and emergency department pending the build-up of facilities elsewhere, including the Homerton —which is bound to take years—and the qualifications with which the closure decision is surrounded are essentially devices to satisfy the judges because the admiral expects to be taken to court. He knows that this is the second bogus consultation process on Bart's over which he has presided in the past year—the other involved the abolition of the trust. The courts have held that consultation is unlawful where decisions carried out are decided before the consultation process begins.
The City of London corporation has recently been talking seriously of setting up a private accident and emergency department at Bart's, through the use of private bonds. Will the Minister tell us tonight whether the charges of private accident and emergency departments in NHS hospitals will be regulated by the Government? I see that the Minister looks shocked—perhaps he will tell us whether patients from Hackney and Islington who cannot afford the entry fee will be refused admission, as in America.
A week ago, six distinguished old grey men in suits presented their paper plans for the future of London specialties. Their plans were, for the most part, designed to appease the Secretary of State. Like Neville Chamberlain, who had a little bit of paper to appease a great dictator, the six men were well intentioned, but foolish. The specialty review on cancer recommended that cancer services provided by Bart's should be moved to the Royal London site. Few recommendations in the history of medicine can have been as brazenly unjustified as that one.
Consultants John Shepherd, the oncology gynaecologist, Maurice Slevin, head of chemotherapy for solid cancers, Professor Andrew Lister, who looks after chemotherapy for blood cancers, and Professor Eden, who

deals with children, made that clear to me when I discussed the review with them, line by line. They are four of the best specialists in Britain—indeed, the world. They work in a unit of international renown which is admitted by everyone in the medical world to be superior in clinical facilities and research to the small unit that exists at the Royal London.
The data show that Barts gets better results of paediatric tumours than any other hospital in the country. Although the data are more difficult to interpret, the same is probably true of ovarian cancer. The head of the review team, Dr. Paine—a competent radiotherapist who is anxious to climb the greasy pole of administration—now intends to destroy the priceless asset.
Dr. Paine's criticism that the cancer services are too dispersed is plain silly. As I was shown round every inch of them, I realised that what Bart's has is not only state-of-the-art medicine, but state-of-the-art management and organisation. It is a pity that Dr. Paine did not compare what exists at Bart's with what exists at the London.
Dr. Paine becomes incomprehensible when he writes of a
less complete range of regional specialties
than is available at the London. Bart's deals with every kind of cancer, and has all the specialties in addition to cancer which any major hospital has. Ultimately, the cancer review comes down to the idiotic argument that, as Tomlinson says that Bart's should close and the Secretary of State is besotted by this lunatic idea, the services at Bart's will have to be moved to the London hospital in order to save them.
The same false argument can be seen more graphically on page 7 of the executive summary of the neuroscience review prepared by Mr. Rab Hide. I was seven years old when I first realised the logical fallacy behind that sort of circular argument. Later, when I studied logic at university, I learned how to formalise the fallacy. My correspondence with Mr. Hide and his protestations of innocence on television only serve to suggest that he is guilty as charged of lack of independence.
Worse, Mr. Hide has got his facts wrong about the financial position of Bart's. I assume that the London Implementation Group has deliberately misled him, as it was misleading Ministers a few months back.
The cardiac review proposes shutting down another famous department of excellence at Bart's. It says that, as Bart's has the smallest unit, its services should be moved to the London. It is a pity that Professor Smith, who headed the review, got his database wrong. Despite the fact that Bart's has marginally fewer facilities than the London, it carries out more cardiac procedures—that is to say, it gives better value for money, and, I might add, better treatment.
In 1991–92, Bart's carried out 1,249 diagnostic coronary angiograms, compared with 946 at the London. Professor Smith does not mention this. Bart's carried out 216 balloon dilatation procedures—angioplasty—compared with 140 at the London. Professor Smith does not mention this. Bart's carried out 442 pacemaker procedures and electrical investigations, compared with 247 at the London. Professor Smith does not mention this.
When it comes to the grand total of angiograms and balloon and electrical procedures, including pacemakers, the figures are 1,907 for Bart's and 1,333 for the London. These figures are achieved with slightly fewer beds at Bart's. It is true that, in 1991–92, the London performed


789 open heart operations, compared with 627 at Bart's. Bart's has approval and funding for a third heart surgeon, but, because of the uncertainty created by the Secretary of State, no appointment can be made at the moment.
Dr. Duncan Dymond has written to me, following my talk with him, about what he describes as "crass errors" in the cardiac review. I challenge the Minister to challenge Dr. Dymond. For example, the review's figures for coronary bypass operations are hopelessly wrong. Moreover, as regards quality, the review takes no account of the issue that matters most—a comparison of the condition of patients when they enter the hospital with their condition when they leave. Dr. Dymond has offered to debate these matters publicly with Professor Smith. Professor Smith should now put up or shut up.
Professor Raine, head of the Bart's renal unit, told me yesterday that Professor Mallick, who headed the specialty review team, has not been able to give a single reason coming within his terms of reference for moving the Bart's unit to the London. Indeed, Professor Mallick, for the review team, admits that Bart's has better clinical facilities and a better academic record than the London.
However, Professor Raine criticises the review team for failing to report that, whereas Bart's has provided satellite units for 15 years, and recently opened one at Wanstead, the London hospital, which is still living in the past, has none. Nor did the review team point out that, in Richard Wood, Bart's has the only professor of surgery in central London who is a renal transplant specialist. What–1 must ask Professor Mallick, through the Minister tonight—are the reasons for these curious omissions?
Professor Raine, who is scornful of the access arguments in the review, added:
I am not what you'd call a Bart's man. I come from Oxford, so I can view these things dispassionately. Whilst I am prepared for change, and would be able to work with people from London, the case for moving facilities from the London to Bart's is much stronger than the case for moving facilities from Bart's to the London.
Moreover, on quality, Professor Raine, in a letter to me, points out that Bart's is the only renal unit in central London for all dialyses to undergo urea kinetic modelling, which is the accepted standard provision for adequate dialysis and is recommended by the pending Renal Association quality of care guidelines.
With regard to the children's review, Professor Eden tells me that the closure, in east London, of Bart's arid the Queen Elizabeth, hospital would produce a major beds shortfall of 120 to 140 in one of the most deprived areas of the country, where nearly one quarter of the population would be affected.
However, all is not lost. The smirks are about to come off the faces of those at the London hospital who have been telling me recently that the Bart's Smithfield site will be cleared within two years. That was the Secretary of State's plan, but Sir Derek Boorman, who is to be chairman of the new merged trust, and Gerry Green, the new chief executive, realise that this is impossible without creating chaos in the national health service in the east end. I have discussed the future with Sir Derek.
Even if the Secretary of State accepts the recommendations of the specialty reviews, and even if it is decided to close Bart's eventually, there will now be a medium-term strategy for five to eight years, during which some facilities will move from the London to Bart's and some from Bart's to the London. Effectively, Bart's has been reprieved until the end of the century, while the Department of Health

begs the Treasury for cash to invest in new facilities for the east end. Hundreds of millions of pounds could be involved, which this bankrupt Government simply do not have.
A steering group from Bart's, the Royal London and the London Chest has been set up to negotiate the medium-term strategy for the merger. Some, like the Secretary of State, will see the strategy as a prelude to the closure of Bart's, but I suspect that she will be long forgotten before it has worked its way through. Others will see it as a breathing space during which Bart's can regroup. On this side of the House, we must pledge ourselves to ensuring that that is the case, and show that it is not only in films and novels that good can triumph over evil and strength can be built in adversity.
Meanwhile, my message to Ministers tonight from Bart's, its patients and supporters is a time-honoured one —"We won't let you bastards grind us down."

12 midnight

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): It is a pleasure to be here tonight to debate the future of Bart's with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore).
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is faced with the fact that there are too many hospitals and too many acute beds to service the current population of London. There is an imbalance in the ratio for London compared with those for areas outside London. Her predecessors faced that problem and her successors will face it. Rhetoric will not make it go away, however amusing the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric might be.
There is no reason why a proportionately larger amount of money should be spent per unit of population in London than is spent outside London. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should spend some time visiting hospitals outside London. He might then appreciate that there are excellent hospitals, and that people must be treated outside London. The strange diabolical motives that he attributed to my right hon. Friend simply made him sound ridiculous.
A number of changes have been proposed, so I want to reassure the House that the overriding priority is the overall patient care for London and its impact on the surrounding areas. We have a responsibility not just for London, but for the whole of the national health service. It is a priority for all the relevant agencies, purchasers of health care, providers and, of course, the Government.
As the hon. Gentleman well knows—he has become something of an expert—the Tomlinson report made some radical recommendations in response to the problems of health care in inner London, to which I have just referred. The recommendation for a shift in resources from acute hospitals to primary care will result in fewer hospital beds and a reduction in the number of sites where acute services are delivered. The problems of the relationship between acute beds and London's population will become more difficult as more and more facilities, in all sorts of specialties, are established outside London, especially just outside London and in the home counties.
I shall deal with some of the specific concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman about the specialty reviews, but I want to put into context the recent press reports about possible changes.
The specialty review reports are independent advice to Ministers. The reports are not policy, and certainly will not alone determine the future pattern of services. The review reports will not determine the future pattern. The advice will be part of a complex jigsaw of elements which will together inform decisions about future service configuration. Other important elements are, for example, a review of special health authority research—due to be published later this month; hospital site appraisals, already under way; and the views of local purchasers and academic interests. The London Implementation Group will ensure that the implications of the review's recommendations, including the implications for other acute services and academic and teaching interests, are fully assessed.
Proposals for change to the pattern of services will be developed mostly at local level and will be presented to Ministers in the autumn. Over the summer, the London Implementation Group will be working to take this process forward and will maintain the direction and momentum of the strategy set out in "Making London Better". Before any changes are considered, Ministers will need to be convinced that they offer real benefits to patients overall as well as value for money. There will be full public consultation on major proposals to close or relocate services.
The Tomlinson report recognised that there was a longstanding need for rationalisation of services between the Royal London and Bart's and for progress towards the full integration of clinical undergraduate teaching. It recommended that the City and east London area would

be better served by a merged hospital bringing together the best of both institutions. It proposed that a single management unit be created to embrace St. Bart's and the Royal London and that, in the light of this, the Bart's trust proposal should not proceed as planned.
In "Making London Better", the Government accepted that Bart's could not continue in its present form and outlined three options for the hospital: the closure of the Bart's Smithfield site; the management of Bart's, the Royal London hospital and the London chest hospital to merge to form a new combined trust; and Bart's to be retained as a much smaller specialist hospital, subject to the specialty reviews and purchasers accepting its costs.
North East Thames regional health authority is carrying out an appraisal of these options, taking into account the views of purchasing health authorities and GPs with a view to making firm proposals by the autumn. The specialty review recommendations will be assessed as part of these appraisals.
In addition, "Making London Better" accepted that other significant changes will be needed to provide a better pattern of services for the local population in the east of London. The people of Hackney and the surrounding area would be best served by the development of the Homerton hospital to meet their needs. Indeed, a further phase of development at the Homerton hospital is now getting under way, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch knows.
As I have said, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to respond to his remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve midnight.